Seeking Alpha

Jeff Nielson's  Instablog

Jeff Nielson
Send Message
Jeff Nielson is from Canada and is a writer/editor for Bullion Bulls Canada (http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/#content). He has a personal background in law and economics. Bullion Bulls Canada provides general macro-economic and political commentary, since the precious metals markets are among... More
My company:
Bullion Bulls Canada
My blog:
  • Foreign Investors FLEE from U.S. debt 21 comments
    Sep 18, 2009 12:11 PM

    As I have pointed out on a number of occasions in the past, the U.S.'s Ponzi-scheme economy requires massive and rising borrowing (on into infinity) in order to avoid financial implosion on the more than $57 trillion in total public/private debt – which does not include the additional $70 trillion or so in unfunded liabilities that the U.S. government hides from its balance-sheet.

     

    For years, the legions of U.S. perma-bulls have scoffed at the suggestion that foreign investors would ever stop financing excessive U.S. spending/consumption. It is now time for the economic commentators who live in the real world to scoff at the perma-bulls.

     

    The Treasury Department just released its July “TIC report” which measures the capital flows into/out of the U.S. economy. For years, this number could be counted upon to show a net inflow which exceeded $100 billion/month. During the worst of last fall's U.S.-created crisis/meltdown, the inflows for October alone exceeded $260 billion.

     

    Those days are gone. In July, foreign investors were net sellers of $97.5 billion of U.S. financial instruments, and in this debt-saturated economy, this means they were dumping U.S. debt. The number would have been much worse if not for the fact that “official” foreign capital flows (i.e. the purchases by friendly governments) were +$33 billion for July. Private investors actually dumped a net $130 billion in U.S. debt.

     

    This is not a new development. Capital flows have been “negative” (i.e. money has been flowing out of the U.S. economy) every month this year except for March, which reported a very small, positive net reading (view this data for yourselves).

     

    As a starting point, these traditional inflows have been necessary to fund the U.S.'s trade deficit and current account deficit. Every dollar of those deficits which is not offset through foreign investment (i.e. purchases of debt) must simply be printed up on “Helicopter” Ben's magic printing-press – which supposedly can print up infinite amounts of new “money” without diluting all the trillions of existing U.S. dollars (i.e. without inflation).

     

    The fact is that there will never be any more foreign demand for U.S. debt, unless/until U.S. interest rates rise high enough to compensate foreign investors for the high risk of default and the enormous inflationary pressures building up in the U.S. economy, as a result of the current reckless creation of new money and debt.

     

    Just as U.S. perma-bulls have discovered the myth that foreign investors would “always” be willing to load up on more U.S. debt, these same deluded zealots are about to discover that there is nothing “magical” about Bernanke's printing press. The U.S. government may be able to grossly manipulate markets over a short-term basis, but it is utterly incapable of repealing the rules of arithmetic.

     

    As any decent economic commentator can tell you, “inflation” is a monetary phenomenon. That is, by definition “inflation” refers to increasing the money supply. With a healthy economy, economic growth can offset some or even all of that new, money-creation (if growth is strong, or money-creation is restrained). With a shrinking economy, every new dollar created represents pure dilution of the currency.

     

    What causes confusion (and ignorance) among most observers of markets is that such inflation is not immediately transmitted into rising retail prices (what most people call “inflation”). And when those price increases begin, they are not evenly distributed through an economy. Some prices will rise more than the rate of money-creation, while some prices will rise more slowly.

     

    The reason for this uneven rate of change in prices is due to the fact that those extra dollars will flow into one sector or another at the whim of investors. This is an important point, as it also illustrates why efforts to re-inflate the U.S. housing-bubble are doomed to fail. The Wall Street oligarchs believe that by simply flooding the U.S. economy with new money/debt, and using its propaganda machine to relentlessly “pump” the U.S. housing market that it can restore previous valuations – and reverse the trillions in losses which they continue to hide on their books.

     

    The reality is that all this newly created money/liquidity is certain to flow into scarce assets (like precious metals) and away from assets which are grossly over-supplied to markets (i.e. U.S. housing and U.S. debt). The only thing which could rekindle an appetite for U.S. debt is to bribe foreign investors with much higher interest rates.

     

    U.S. propagandists will continue to insist that an appetite remains for U.S. Treasuries, a flow of foreign capital which the U.S. government depends upon to avoid national default and/or hyperinflation. However a steady stream of reports from other commentators indicate the U.S. government (and Federal Reserve) have been engaging in various forms of subterfuge to hide the fact that the U.S. is forced to “buy” much more of its own Treasuries than it admits to. Recent changes by the Treasury Department in how it reports its Treasuries auctions have become so convoluted that even pros who have been trading in these markets for decades admit they have no idea of who is really buying these Treasuries.


     

    There are only two ways in which this extremely dangerous trend can evolve. One scenario is that the U.S. government will continue to keep U.S. interest rates artificially low, and be forced into much more “quantitative easing”/“monetizing debt” (pick your euphemism). By simply printing money to “pay” most/all of its debts this guarantees hyperinflation – since no one will be willing to hold a currency being diluted in such a reckless manner.

     

    The other scenario is that the U.S. must raise its interest rates high enough to attract sufficient foreign capital. Keep in mind that this will take place at the same time that virtually all other economies will be raising interest rates rapidly – to try to undo all the inflationary harm they have set in motion with their radical injections of liquidity into the global economy. In order for the U.S. to attract more demand for its own debt markets, it will have to exceed the rate at which other nations raise their rates – by a considerable margin.

     

    Not only would rapidly rising rates immediately cause the U.S. housing collapse to start to accelerate again, but in an economy which is carrying over $57 trillion in debt, every 1% rise in interest rates will suck over $500 BILLION out of the U.S. economy per year. In other words, a 1% rise in U.S. interest rates will drain more than double the amount of “stimulus” spending from the Obama regime for this year.

     

    This is why the U.S. government is so frantic to keep interest rates low (and to fake demand for U.S. Treasuries). It is also why the U.S. government will be willing to “sacrifice” U.S. equity markets – to try to frighten both U.S. and foreign investors back into U.S. Treasuries.

     

    If the relentless rise in insider-selling isn't enough to scare sensible investors away from U.S. equity markets, then surely the negative trends in debt markets should do the trick. In this Ponzi-scheme economy, the favored Ponzi-scheme has always been (and always will be) U.S. Treasuries.

Back To Jeff Nielson's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (21)
Track new comments
  • Mono
    , contributor
    Comments (158) | Send Message
     
    went through tic data yesterday too jeff. your spot on again.

     

    In 2007 there were net inflows of $612B,
    In 2008 there were net inflows of $675B,

     

    Previous 3 months -54.6B, -57B, -56.8B

     

    Last month (August 2009): -$97.5B.
    18 Sep 2009, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17785) | Send Message
     
    Jeff, good article.

     

    As I saw this, "The other scenario is that the U.S. must raise its interest rates high enough to attract sufficient foreign capital."

     

    I had thoughts about alternatives, that relates to this "to try to frighten both U.S. and foreign investors back into U.S. Treasuries."

     

    Although I've little doubt about the second quote, I wouldn't be surprised if a third alternative wasn't found: create a fear in the world economy through some "international crises" that might/might not justify a potential military action by one of the major powers.

     

    I've never seen a "tool" that wouldn't be abused by our government (U.S.) for it's megalomaniacal purposes. We have one of the better "tools" in our high-tech, mobile and well trained military.

     

    It disgusts me to think of my government in that manner, but I don't like to let sentiment blind me to reality.

     

    I appreciate the article and the link too!

     

    HardToLove
    18 Sep 2009, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • Jeff Nielson
    , contributor
    Comments (2464) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Yes, Hard to Love, we certainly can't ignore the historic "solution" to past economic crises: war.

     

    My main reason for not putting this at the top of my list of options is based upon how prohibitively expensive waging a war has become. Even just a generation ago, governments still relied mostly upon their human "fodder" (both cheap AND replaceable).

     

    Today, U.S. soldiers are often little more than "spotters" for its aircraft and artillery. Not only has this radically increased the costs to EQUIP an army, it has also dramatically raised the ENERGY REQUIREMENTS of the modern war-machine.

     

    Given the increasing scarcity of crude oil, this means that any significant military action will likely lead to an immediate (and economically crippling) spike in oil prices. Any war in the Middle East would likely double the "war premium".

     

    This would seem to put an END to the "equation" that starting a war would/could ultimately end an "economic crisis". Now, it is more likely to simply make such crises even WORSE.

     

    On Sep 18 12:36 PM H. T. Love wrote:

     

    > Jeff, good article.
    >
    > As I saw this, "The other scenario is that the U.S. must raise its
    > interest rates high enough to attract sufficient foreign capital."
    >
    >
    > I had thoughts about alternatives, that relates to this "to try to
    > frighten both U.S. and foreign investors back into U.S. Treasuries."
    >
    >
    > Although I've little doubt about the second quote, I wouldn't be
    > surprised if a third alternative wasn't found: create a fear in the
    > world economy through some "international crises" that might/might
    > not justify a potential military action by one of the major powers.
    >
    >
    > I've never seen a "tool" that wouldn't be abused by our government
    > (U.S.) for it's megalomaniacal purposes. We have one of the better
    > "tools" in our high-tech, mobile and well trained military.
    >
    > It disgusts me to think of my government in that manner, but I don't
    > like to let sentiment blind me to reality.
    >
    > I appreciate the article and the link too!
    >
    > HardToLove
    18 Sep 2009, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • Carlos Lam
    , contributor
    Comments (1306) | Send Message
     
    1. Jeff, are we sure that the net sales are a trend and not some sort of seasonal sales? I didn't have a chance to look at all the TIC data and plot it on a graph to be sure that there is a REAL change in foreign activity.

     

    2. Could this simply be an unwinding of massive purchases? There was a flight to "quality" last year during the worst of the crisis, and lots of dollar purchases. It's possible that this is merely unwinding of those purchases, but -- again -- I haven't plotted the data.
    19 Sep 2009, 06:22 AM Reply Like
  • nova
    , contributor
    Comments (569) | Send Message
     
    I have a simple question: why will anybody in a sound mind buy US debts since there is no (none, zero) political will to cut runaway spending?

     

    Note that US Treasury stop insuring/guaranteeing mutual funds trying to redirect US internal money into Treasuries obligations.
    19 Sep 2009, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Jeff Nielson
    , contributor
    Comments (2464) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Hi Carlos.

     

    Given that the numbers totally REVERSE historic trends, and given the numerous and strong fundamental reasons for investors to flee from U.S. debt (beginning with interest rates which are TOTALLY insufficient to compensate investors for their risk), there is no reason to believe the numbers for the last 7 months are "anomalous" in any respect.

     

    Indeed, the "anomalous" behavior occurred last year - when the USD rose to ridiculous heights, while interest rates fell to ridiculous lows. The rise of the USD occurred only because markets were forced to settle vast amounts of bets which had been placed using USD's. This forced these participants to acquire vast amounts of USD's (driving up the price, temporarily) - no matter how atrocious the fundamentals were/are for the USD.

     

    Unless/until U.S. interest rates move much higher, it would be totally irrational for investors NOT to continue to shun U.S. debt.

     

    On Sep 19 06:22 AM Carlos Lam wrote:

     

    > 1. Jeff, are we sure that the net sales are a trend and not some
    > sort of seasonal sales? I didn't have a chance to look at all the
    > TIC data and plot it on a graph to be sure that there is a REAL change
    > in foreign activity.
    >
    > 2. Could this simply be an unwinding of massive purchases? There
    > was a flight to "quality" last year during the worst of the crisis,
    > and lots of dollar purchases. It's possible that this is merely
    > unwinding of those purchases, but -- again -- I haven't plotted the
    > data.
    19 Sep 2009, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • Tom Au, CFA
    , contributor
    Comments (6774) | Send Message
     
    Current Treasury interest rates don't adequately reflect the (low) quality of U.S. sovereign debt. Until they do, it would be foolish to buy U.S. Treasuries. It's not surprising that many people are fleeing U.S. debt. What is surprising is that quite a few people are still staying.
    19 Sep 2009, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • Bill S. Friend
    , contributor
    Comments (711) | Send Message
     
    The reputation of the USD has carried through until now. Everytime money supply has been expanded in every part of the world the result has been inflation correlating with that expansion. So, correct me if i am wrong, the FED has created 300% more money. 300% inflation is possible. Over what time frame? We are in uncharted waters here, and we still dont have an accurate picture of banks liabilities. It is possible two thirds of commercial real estate loans will fail over the next decade. Gold is already nearing an all time high and inflation isnt even on the horizon yet.
    The dollar will fall until our exports become affordable to the rest of the world. I hope it occurs in my lifetime.
    19 Sep 2009, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • Andrew Butter
    , contributor
    Comments (1622) | Send Message
     
    Very good article as usual.

     

    1: The $2.7 trillion that the Fed pumped so far into the banks is as far as I can understand mainly sitting in the banks covering the losses that they made by writing bad loans (whether they bundled those into securitized debt and sold the good ones and kept the toxic ones is simply detail).

     

    Doesn't that money have to get out of the bank vaults and into the economy before it starts to cause inflation?

     

    2: I disagree that raising interest rates will do much or anything to push down house prices, the current situation is that housing is under valued by 20% at least - i.e. if there weren't so many foreclosures people could sell their houses in a non crisis mode for a lot more than they are getting now. Worst case they will drop another 10%, then either stabilize or start to rise, and that will be almost completely independent of what happens to interest rates, what's happening now is the natural re-adjustment after a bubble bursts.

     

    I think a mistake the government is making is that they think that increasing interest rates will drive house prices down more, and that is why they are not doing the right thing which as you suggest is to put up rates and stop pumping good money or bad money whatever you want to call it, after bad.

     

    20 Sep 2009, 07:16 AM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1890) | Send Message
     
    Great article. The monetization is particularly disconcerting. I don't want to wake up Sunday morning to an announcement "Gold Now Worth $3,000" - I guess I won't wait to buy more gold but will buy more gold and wait.
    20 Sep 2009, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • Curtis Forbes
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    This could go on longer than anticipated because the Federal Reserve transfered $500 Billion U.S. dollars to foreign banks who are using this money to buy treasury bills. This gives the appearance of strong demand from foreigners but is just another form of monetizing the debt. Senator Alan Grayson revealed this:

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?....

     

    The real reason the Chinese are encouraging their citizens to buy silver and gold is to prevent an upset to the market. If the Chinese government was buying all the bullion themselves, prices would spike. In a communist country, if the government wants the silver or gold from their citizens, they just ask for it so it's the same as if the government had purchased it themselves. One way the Chinese government can shed their Treasury Bills quickly would be to borrow against these T-Bills and exchange them for U.S. dollar denominated debt. That could happen in one day and no one would see it coming before it's too late. Japan and Russia wouldn't be too happy though and may be planning to do the same . . . . .

     

    It will happen gradually then suddenly.
    20 Sep 2009, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff Nielson
    , contributor
    Comments (2464) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Interesting comments, everyone!
    20 Sep 2009, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8670) | Send Message
     
    Actually, the market would work all this out, except for Ben. Ben won't allow interest rates to rise to keep foreigners buying. Foreigners aren't buying because Ben is buying everything in sight to keep the interest rates on the floor. Foreigners looking for a safe haven can't find it in America any longer because Ben has stripped TBonds of their payoff function -- high interest. Ben is actually driving foreigners to gold -- although I'm sure that is not his primary intent.
    20 Sep 2009, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Curtis Forbes
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    Hi Michael. Can you elaborate on why you think Bernake is driving people to gold? Is it to inflate the currency and allow them to make debt payments in cheap dollars?

     

    On Sep 20 12:23 PM Michael Clark wrote:

     

    > Actually, the market would work all this out, except for Ben. Ben
    > won't allow interest rates to rise to keep foreigners buying. Foreigners
    > aren't buying because Ben is buying everything in sight to keep the
    > interest rates on the floor. Foreigners looking for a safe haven
    > can't find it in America any longer because Ben has stripped TBonds
    > of their payoff function -- high interest. Ben is actually driving
    > foreigners to gold -- although I'm sure that is not his primary intent.
    20 Sep 2009, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8670) | Send Message
     
    I think the SECOND TO LAST thing Bernie wants is people turning to gold. But the LAST thing he wants is interest rates going up, because they will deflate the bubble he's manufacturing, pretending it is a recovery. Rates WANT to go up. We've ratcheted down rates for 18 years, vomiting easy money all over the world. We need a tight money period to recover from the big party. But Ben has said his greatest fear is that he will preside over the 'Second Great Depression' -- so he's willing to do anything he has to do to avoid being excoriated in the history books.

     

    Because Ben won't allow the T-Bonds to go unappreciated in the marketplace, which if it happened, would drive up interest rates, the dollar continues to get weaker and weaker. Do people really want to buy TBonds that are paying nothing in interest when everyone knows that TBonds should be paying a LOT more in interest? Investors see that the most powerful man in the world is committed to keeping the dollar weak. Can they find another currency they want to swap the dollar for? No. None of the currencies are any good. Commodities? Well commodities are good if there is a global recovery -- but no one wants to be holding expensive oil, copper, aluminum, iron ore... when the global economy does not recover. That means these investors are looking for a commodity that will thrive if the global depression continues, and a currency to replace the Dollar: the only thing out there that fits this picture is gold (and silver).

     

    Ben does NOT want gold to go up. But there is not much he can do about it at the moment, unless he decides to let the market run free, and stop support stocks and bonds.

     

    Once you start manipulating, the manipulation takes on a life of its own -- and becomes a monster than can eat you if you make a mistake in judgment. Humans always make mistakes in judgment -- some times at least.

     

    On Sep 20 12:57 PM Curtis Forbes wrote:

     

    > Hi Michael. Can you elaborate on why you think Bernake is driving
    > people to gold? Is it to inflate the currency and allow them to
    > make debt payments in cheap dollars?
    20 Sep 2009, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Clark
    , contributor
    Comments (8670) | Send Message
     
    Housing is undervalued by 20%? If there weren't so many foreclosures people could sell their houses in a non crisis mode for more than they are getting now?

     

    What does undervalued mean -- if you eliminate 20 million homes on the market that are empty or entering foreclosure? It's like saying stocks are undervalued if you pretend they haven't gone up 48% since March and pretend they are still back at March lows.

     

    Housing historically gains 2.5% a year, roughly. In the last decade prices went up 250-300% in some places. That is a HUGE overvaluation. If houses should have gone up 20% in the last 10 years and went up 250% instead, there is a LOT more decline in housing to get us back down toward the normal valuation. Even housing losing 60% of its value has only taken a small step back toward the real value of housing -- based on incomes and affordability -- which has always been the yardstick of housing values. Now people are losing jobs, salaries are declining, debt is at an all time high...

     

    I really don't understand what your are basing your valuations on. The bubble economy was a fluke. Those valuations need to be wiped out. We need to go back to ground zero and begin all over again, with a sane rational system that takes the power of e-valuating values out of the hands of bankers and insurance men. Housing valuations MUST BE tied to salaries and not be tied to exotic schemes tied to interest rates that assume housing is a secondary stock market.

     

    On Sep 20 07:16 AM Andrew Butter wrote:

     

    > Very good article as usual.
    >
    > 1: The $2.7 trillion that the Fed pumped so far into the banks is
    > as far as I can understand mainly sitting in the banks covering the
    > losses that they made by writing bad loans (whether they bundled
    > those into securitized debt and sold the good ones and kept the toxic
    > ones is simply detail).
    >
    > Doesn't that money have to get out of the bank vaults and into the
    > economy before it starts to cause inflation?
    >
    > 2: I disagree that raising interest rates will do much or anything
    > to push down house prices, the current situation is that housing
    > is under valued by 20% at least - i.e. if there weren't so many foreclosures
    > people could sell their houses in a non crisis mode for a lot more
    > than they are getting now. Worst case they will drop another 10%,
    > then either stabilize or start to rise, and that will be almost completely
    > independent of what happens to interest rates, what's happening now
    > is the natural re-adjustment after a bubble bursts.
    >
    > I think a mistake the government is making is that they think that
    > increasing interest rates will drive house prices down more, and
    > that is why they are not doing the right thing which as you suggest
    > is to put up rates and stop pumping good money or bad money whatever
    > you want to call it, after bad.
    >
    20 Sep 2009, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • Curtis Forbes
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    Great clarification Michael. Thanks.

     

    On Sep 20 04:23 PM Michael Clark wrote:

     

    > I think the SECOND TO LAST thing Bernie wants is people turning to
    > gold. But the LAST thing he wants is interest rates going up, because
    > they will deflate the bubble he's manufacturing, pretending it is
    > a recovery. Rates WANT to go up. We've ratcheted down rates for
    > 18 years, vomiting easy money all over the world. We need a tight
    > money period to recover from the big party. But Ben has said his
    > greatest fear is that he will preside over the 'Second Great Depression'
    > -- so he's willing to do anything he has to do to avoid being excoriated
    > in the history books.
    >
    > Because Ben won't allow the T-Bonds to go unappreciated in the marketplace,
    > which if it happened, would drive up interest rates, the dollar continues
    > to get weaker and weaker. Do people really want to buy TBonds that
    > are paying nothing in interest when everyone knows that TBonds should
    > be paying a LOT more in interest? Investors see that the most powerful
    > man in the world is committed to keeping the dollar weak. Can they
    > find another currency they want to swap the dollar for? No. None
    > of the currencies are any good. Commodities? Well commodities are
    > good if there is a global recovery -- but no one wants to be holding
    > expensive oil, copper, aluminum, iron ore... when the global economy
    > does not recover. That means these investors are looking for a commodity
    > that will thrive if the global depression continues, and a currency
    > to replace the Dollar: the only thing out there that fits this picture
    > is gold (and silver).
    >
    > Ben does NOT want gold to go up. But there is not much he can do
    > about it at the moment, unless he decides to let the market run free,
    > and stop support stocks and bonds.
    >
    > Once you start manipulating, the manipulation takes on a life of
    > its own -- and becomes a monster than can eat you if you make a mistake
    > in judgment. Humans always make mistakes in judgment -- some times
    > at least.
    22 Sep 2009, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • jmc8888
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    While the hyperinflation hits, the physical economy will continue to contract, accelerating even faster. So we'll have hyperinflation in $$$$, and deflation in 'real' things.

     

    Meaning everything will be scarce, and cost way more money than you could even afford now, let alone in $$$$ worth anywhere between 10 percent to 1/100th of 1 percent of what it currently is.

     

    Meaning under this situation, everyone, even movie stars and sports athletes will be facing starvation, looting, general breakdown in everything.

     

    Everyone who let this happen over the last 30-40 years, because they got theirs, call it THEIR '30 pieces of silver' will be put in the same boat as all of us.

     

    Everyone screwed the middle class. Now EVERYONE is screwed and EVERYONE can live like welfare mom with 7 kids. Not because of her, but because of THEMSELVES, their GREED, and their hegemony.

     

    You wanted trickled down economics to rule the day, well it has, and this is what we got. (any sane person who wasn't ripe with greed KNEW THIS)

     

    IMHO - Coming this October
    it's grand
    it's spectacular
    it's SHOCK AND AWE
    starting on wall street Oct 1st-15th (unless some rats jump the ship a day or two early)
    Coming to YOUR neighborhood soon
    22 Sep 2009, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • jmc8888
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Housing needs to go back to 1970's-1980's levels, i.e. 50k per house.

     

    Even that might be TOO much.

     

    All the fake gains of the last 40 years (perhaps only 30) will get washed away, and in fact, since such a shock happens, it must go LOWER before it stabilizes to a level of 1970's-1980's housing prices.

     

    If the gov't wasn't holding or producing or guaranteeing anywhere between 66-95 percent of those three areas regarding the housing market, one could say we would already have at least double the losses in valuation as we had the past year. Once that support is gone, another free fall in housing prices is GUARANTEED.

     

    If that support stays, it still goes down, but slower, at the costs of roughly 5-10 trillion or more, since we are currently funding and guaranteeing the purchases of homes who will default too. (In a housing market where each house is really worth about 20 percent of it's current value - NOT 2007 levels). Meaning trillions and trillions of more debt, all for not.
    22 Sep 2009, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • king norm
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Interest rates are not the problem, general public fear of spending ones hard earned money or saving,s is! you cant plant money seeds in your garden and expect them to grow in the coming spring.
    8 Nov 2011, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • king norm
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Why is rescap llc having a news blackout concerning it,s possible

     

    bankruptcy restructuring?
    3 Dec 2011, 12:16 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

  • Fixed-income investments are totally insane in the current environment, and we can't hold all our wealth in gold and silver bullion.
    May 5, 2009
More »

Latest Comments


Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.