DCM

20 Comments

    • ON: Sun Oct 12th 09:46 AM
      Commented on:
      The Bottom's Within Sight - Barron's
      Each day that passes, information will be revealed about just how dire the situation is. More importantly, most Americans, (the 90% that controls but 10% of the wealth) will finally wake up to the fact that this country is no longer a democracy, but a plutocracy. Every single economic policy supported, promoted and enacted by primarily the Republicans in Congress will be exposed as policies designed to keep the wealthy in power and the rest of us constrained. For more than 25 years, the Republicans have supported supply side (trickle down) economics, tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, consumer spending (vs. saving) and a dismantling of consumer protections. The Democrats are just as guilty for not standing up to the Republicans and in many ways supporting legislation that has protected the plutocracy. I think both sides have intentionally employed gridlock
      as a tactic to evade doing anything to benefit the majority of Americans.

      Now that financial armageddon has come to the world, who are the first to be saved? The wealthy!!!! As this world wide depression sweeps the planet, I think there is a chance that we may see a significant amount of class warfare erupt. It may get very ugly, before it gets better, but it will get better!

      View article »
    • ON: Sun Oct 12th 08:30 AM
      Commented on:
      What Does Warren Buffett See in General Electric?
      I am betting against Buffett and shorting GE. I have made every other mistake in the book, why not take a go at this one.

      The fact is I am having trouble finding good short candidates because most stocks are soooo..... oversold right now. Good Luck and I hope we all come out alive.

      As far as the article goes, did anyone learn anything from it?
      View article »
    • ON: Sat Oct 4th 18:40 PM
      Commented on:
      Iceland: When Too Big to Fail Becomes Too Big to Rescue
      Thank you, thank you for posting this article. Most will not grasp the significance as most are clueless here and too arogant to understand that the U.S. economy is a train wreck about to happen. Sadly for years, we assumed that the financial world revolves around us. It is true, yet so wrong. The plutocrats out of greed have gone too far. Their comeuppence is coming. Hang on, it will be a rough ride. In "God We Trust" dollars will not save us. If China gets out of Treasury's, the game is over. I am so glad I am up to my ears in gold and silver bullion.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Sep 18th 08:19 AM
      Commented on:
      New Home Construction Plunges to 17-Year Low
      "Permits for new construction, a leading indicator for future building activity, dropped to an annual rate of 854,000 units in August"

      What in the world are these builders thinking? Would like to know which banks are lending construction money and WHY? Like we need more housing units on the market to meet the enormous demand!
      View article »
    • ON: Sun Sep 14th 10:56 AM
      Commented on:
      How Long Until Housing Prices Stabilize?
      I have not seen but I would like to see a chart of the number of housing units relative to the number of households. In my simplistic view, as long as the number of housing units exceeds the number of households, it will not be possible to reach a bottom per se. Only when supply equals demand will we bottom.

      I would also like to see charts on the number of new jobs being created in relation to the increase in population. And given an increase in both population and jobs, what effect would this have on income levels?

      Assuming housing supply stays constant, if housing demand does not significantly increase as the result of any combination of job creation, wage increases, household equity increase, immigration or foreign investment, it does not seem likely that we will reach an equilibrium between housing demand and supply anytime soon.

      What seems particularly ludicrous to me is any discussion of building new housing units on the top of the already burgeoning supply of homes on the market. It seems to me that the future for the construction trades will be in rehab and renovation.
      View article »
    • ON: Tue Sep 9th 10:53 AM
      Commented on:
      The Government's Moral Hazard with Fannie and Freddie
      "The moral hazard of the government's actions will be felt by future generations." How many voters agree with this statement? What will you do about it this November? Trickle down economics and encouraging spending (through easier credit) hasn't worked - is not ever going to work. The fact that half the country thinks it will and will probably vote for politicians that will continue those policies tells me this country is doomed to fail.

      For the record, I agree with the statement and the premise set forth in this article. I for one am not going to pay another tax dollar to a government that takes my money to protect and bailout the wealthy elite. Make no mistake - the wealthy pay billions to Washington politicians (primarily Republicans) to protect and grow their wealth into the trillons. Wake Up America! I was going to say before its too late but I think it already is.
      View article »
    • ON: Tue Sep 9th 10:16 AM
      Commented on:
      Buffett, Rogers at Odds on Fannie/Freddie Bailout
      Jim Rogers nailed it! This is yet again a bail-out of the wealthy elite. This will do nothing to help stabilize housing values and will in fact encourage lenders to prosecute foreclosures driving home prices down even further. As values go down, foreclosures will mount. And FNM and FRE will just write off the bad loans and the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

      For the first time that I can remember, I disagree with Buffett. Whether they enact this plan or not, there are going to be much greater losses down the road. I also disagree that this was a problem that was decades in the making. The greed of Wall Street, excessive CEO compensation, artificially controlled interest rates and no government oversight are all key factors in causing the recent housing bubble and they all occurred since the Republicans gained control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government in 2000. That is a fact!

      IF there has to be a bail-outs and IF Congress is serious about stabilizing the housing market AND the economy, then at least make the taxpayers bail-out the taxpayers. I would first like to see the greedy elite be punished by confisicating their billions of dollars of ill-gotten gains. It would not be surprising to learn that over a trillion dollars was awarded as compensation in the past 8 years. The actions taken by our government so far have essentially rewarded bad behavior.

      It is crtical that housing prices be stabilized. I have read that over a third of per capita wealth has been wiped out. This is not surprising, given that most people's equity is in their homes. Extraordinary measures need to be taken now. Beyond confiscation of ill-gotten gains, there needs to be a moratorium on foreclosures and new housing units. This is a no brainer - simply a function of supply and demand. You cannot continue to increase supply as demand is reduced.

      If bold steps are not taken immediately, over the next decade this will create a downward death spiral for our economy. The result will be class warfare as never before seen in this country.
      View article »
    • ON: Wed Aug 27th 10:59 AM
      Commented on:
      A Spurious Solution to the Housing Crisis
      In an ideal/perfect world people would not make poor decisions, let alone life changing disastrous decisions. If borrowers knew that home prices were going to decline 20-50%; if investors knew that lenders were making bad loans knowing they could sell the loans to Wall Street, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; if we all understood that the government was keeping interest rates low to artificially stimulate economic growth, I believe most people would have made far different decisions with their finances and investments. The point is, bad decisions were made all around and those bad decisions need to be minimized now before Americans pay too heavy a price, especially those who can least afford it. I suggest it could be a big mistake if people underestimate the possibility of our financial markets collapsing. If that happens, the country and probably the world could not avoid a prolonged depression. Hope I am wrong here but I would not bet against it happening.

      The solution should not be forcing taxpayers to bail out the wealthy and prosperous people and their institutions that knowingly corrupted the secondary mortgage markets and inflated the bubble. The solution should have been to immediately contain and stabilize the housing market at the expense of those who benefited the most over the previous 8 years. I ask you, how is it possible to ever reach a “bottom” when each month more homes become available for sale while there are fewer and fewer qualified buyers. The last thing banks should be doing is foreclosing on homes and selling them at fire sale prices. Homebuilders also need to be stopped from building more homes.

      The way to turn this around is to require lenders to renegotiate existing mortgages at lower interest rates and eliminate the acceleration clause (allow mortgages to be assumable.) The mortgage payment at 2% is about 30% less versus a 6% interest rate. (For example, a $100,000 mortgage, the payment decreases from $745 to $515.) If lenders need to increase yield to investors, they can slightly discount the principal. Remember, lender’s generate the largest share of revenue up front in closing costs and discount points. Servicing fees are revenue producing but not profitable. Looking ahead, how bright is the future for mortgage lending in this country over the next 10 to 20 years anyway? I suggest that the aforementioned approach is potentially better than the current one of banks taking write downs; and/or, the government bailing out lenders and investment banks, or backstopping Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and the FDIC.
      View article »
    • ON: Fri May 23rd 11:21 AM
      Commented on:
      A Self-Serving Non-Solution to Negative Equity in America
      Mr. Shedlock, your attitude is as self-serving as Mr. Ross’s! You don’t want to make any sacrifice for someone else’s misfortune. If someone else got screwed over, that’s their problem; they should have known better. If someone is homeless, well, they deserve to be; all they need to do is get a good job. If some child goes hungry – tough luck, their parents should be better providers. We can go on and on but at the end of the day, it’s all about the haves and the have nots.

      Given this popular self-serving mentality found in America today, it comes as no surprise that any solution to this uniquely profound mess were in, will always meet resistance from the haves. To quote Shedlock, “The real problem in the US is that home prices are still too high and those prices need to come down, not propped up by self serving bailouts.” Mr. Ross’s solution may be self-serving but it may also serve the needs of millions of Americans. I think there is a better solution but to denounce it because it is self-serving is irresponsible. You would think it would be clear by now, that if a solution is not found for this unprecedented economic fiasco, the fallout is going to grow even more painful and become more protracted. Letting the market work it out and not doing anything for millions of Americans is totally irresponsible. If this market is left to work itself out, the damage is going to be a hundred times more horrific than Katrina.

      Mr. Shedlock, I have for you and your ilk, the same disgust as you do for the “self-serving” Mr. Ross. You’re just as self-serving! You oppose a taxpayer bailout. “What's unreasonable is to expect those not in trouble to bail out those in trouble.” I would suggest that this country is in great economic trouble and it is affecting most Americans. All too many people have this attitude of protecting their own at the expense of all others. Since Katrina, the attitude of most in the country is that “those people” had no business building homes below sea level, and they should not expect to be bailed out because they did not have insurance to cover their loss. The attitude of it's their problem, don't look to me for help only pushes more people into economic distress which the taxpayer ultimately pays for.

      I hope baby boomers nearing retirement are paying close attention to the self-serving attitudes of Mr. Shedlock and his kind. For most of you, your primary retirement nest egg is evaporating by the minute. “Analysts have forecast that by June 30, 10.6m families will have either no equity in their homes or a negative equity.” This is an alarming statistic given that about 70% of the 80 million families in America own a home and that this situation is forecasted to get much worse. We could have one in four families with no or negative equity in their homes. What about the people that lost only 50 to 100% of their equity? For those of you in your 20’s, 30’s or even 40’s, a 50% to 100% decrease in equity may seem like no big deal as there will be time to recover. However, how can you assume that prices will bounce back? Is it because they have before? Our country has never experienced an economy like today’s nor a housing bubble of this magnitude. All the circumstances that led us to this point have never been experienced before. As long as we have more homes than buyers, mortgage debt greater than home values, and an illiquid marketplace, it is hard to imagine how home values could increase across the board until these dynamics change.

      Maybe Mr. Ross’s solution is the wrong one but it is not wrong because it is self-serving. The wealth in this country has never been more disproportionate. The people who benefited from the housing bubble (investors, lenders, builders, and all the ancillary real estate actors) are not being held accountable for their greedy and self-serving actions. Punishing people foolish enough to pursue the dream of homeownership and those gawd awful small time home flippers is not the answer. You keep pushing these people lower on the food chain and I promise you, the taxpayer's bill will only go up. The government needs to step in and take steps to reallocate wealth in America because our free market capitalism is darn sure not going to do it.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu May 22nd 10:02 AM
      Commented on:
      Did We Learn Anything Over the Past Two Years?
      Thank you for the article. These are the thoughts that stirred in my mind after reading it. Maybe we should look at home lending underwriting in an entirely new light. To begin with, consider credit card debt or car loans. Are the credit card companies curtailing credit limits or reducing the number of new credit cards issued? Are lenders changing how they make auto loans in any substantive way? No, but they are finding ways to increase per borrower yields. Despite a historically high percentage of defaults and unprecedented level of consumer debt, lenders/banks are taking on increased risk exposure in order to make more money. In other words the risk reward ratio is sustainable.

      So now I have to wonder, why wouldn’t a bank want to make a mortgage loan if at all reasonably possible on an appreciating asset (vs. a depreciating asset) selling at a heavy discount? Why would a bank foreclose on a property only to have to turn around and sell it at a bigger discount and with additional costs (carrying costs, repair and maintenance) when they could go to their customer and say bring me a warm body with a possibility of making payments at a very competitive fixed interest rate? The worst case scenario is that sometime in the future they have to take the property back or find a new borrower.

      The banks are getting smarter about how they handle risk loss with credit card and auto loan customers. The irony is that there is no security on one and depreciating security on the other. If I was a lender, I would much rather hold a portfolio of loans on assets that have the potential to appreciate. Right now is an excellent time for banks to increase their risk reward ratio. What I am suggesting is that banks/lenders look at the real estate market like a savvy investor looks at the stock market. The savvy investor buys when others are selling and sells when others are buying. Like investors who invested in stocks in 2000 and 2006, borrowers continued to increase mortgage amounts when housing prices were skyrocketing to finally an unsustainable level. Banks acted like greedy unprofessional investors and made loans when the reward risk ratio was extremely low. Now, when the reward risk ratio is high, lenders are not lending and borrowers can’t borrow. It makes no sense! Lenders supported by government backed securitization should be aggressively expanding their portfolios by loosening credit underwriting standards (property and borrower.) What better way to get REO’s off the books and liquefy the housing market.

      Banks and borrowers need to approach home ownership and lending from a different perspective. Borrowers need to stop looking at home purchases as an investment or potential retirement nest egg. Owning versus renting should be strictly a lifestyle choice. The lenders need to approach home lending from a macro investment approach. They need to lend money at times when the risk reward ratio will support lending. This approach will eliminate the chance of making loans based on rising home prices versus lending to borrowers only when their income and net worth can justify higher home prices. This approach would in effect act like a governor controlling the speed of a train.

      These are just some thoughts - comments welcomed.
      View article »
    • ON: Sat May 17th 13:25 PM
      Commented on:
      The Home Start Numbers Are Not a Positive
      With the exception of possibly a very few number of markets, adding more units of any type will only exacerbate an already certain protracted downturn in real estate. A positive sign would be a significant percentage increase in the number of first home buyers. Thanks to Economics 101, we all know price is a function of supply and demand. In most markets, supply far outweighs demand. If builders and lenders were not so greedy in the last 5 years or so, we would not be in this mess. Please tell me what lesson has been learned when apparently lenders continue to loan money to builders to create more housing? Indeed, the home start numbers are not a positive!!!
      View article »
    • ON: Thu May 15th 09:07 AM
      Commented on:
      Get Ready to Short Homebuilders
      I wish someone could explain to me where the buyers are going to come from to buy this historically high excess inventory. The housing bubble was created because people who previously could not qualify for a mortgage (poor credit, insufficient income, no down payment) were financed with sub-prime mortgages. Assuming that millions of people will not be back in the market or will now be unable to qualify for a mortgage, where exactly are these buyers going to come from?

      The reason we have an historically high inventory is because there are fewer qualified buyers. Most potential buyers are not waiting on the sidelines for prices to fall further (i.e become more affordable.) Most are not buying because they cannot sell the homes they live in now! It is going to take an unprecedented number of qualified first-time home buyers to soak up the current excess inventory of homes. Given the new (old) lending standards, it does not seem likely that this is going to happen anytime soon. This is one time I hope I am mistaken and am missing something here.
      View article »
    • ON: Tue Apr 29th 10:02 AM
      Commented on:
      Those Who Know and Those Who Don't
      Mr. Panzner:
      Is it not possible to have a bottom in the price of housing stocks and still see declines in the prices of homes? I don't think their is a direct correlation between the two but I may be wrong.

      The bigger question is how can builders maintain any profit margin when building costs are staying level if not increasing and sale prices are declining by 30 to 40%? Were profit margins that enormous (40 to 50%) at the beginning of this decade? I was under the assumption that builders were operating at about 20 to 30%, in which case there should not be any profit margin left. Assuming that traditional credit underwriting will remain the norm where are the buyers going to come from? In many previously active markets, there is a 3 to 5 year supply of homes. How can a builder sell into an oversupply of existing homes that sell at a discount to new construction? I must be missing something here.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Apr 24th 08:53 AM
      Commented on:
      Anti-Foreclosure Measures and Lenders Rights - Housing Tracker
      @ArnoldCountry
      I basically agree with your premise and conclusion. However, it should be pointed out that credit underwriting standards have reverted back to having "good" credit to qualify. The percentage of people who have good credit is disturbingly low. It is hard to imagine where the buyers are going to come from to buy the existing housing available, regardless of price.

      What troubles me is that builders keep building (at least in my area) which adds to our 4 year supply of homes for sale. Construction materials and labor costs have not significantly declined. Therefore, new construction per square foot costs are about the same which by rough calculation is $50 to $75 per square foot higher than our existing house's asking price! I assume that bulders are not going to build and then turnaround and sell for a loss. So, the question is how can builders continue to get construction loans or better yet, what kind of idiot lender would lend money with little hope of ever getting paid in this lifetime? In any case, it is insanity to add more housing to an already multi-year oversupply of houses on the market.

      Recovery? Bottom? I will believe we are on the road to a housing recovery when there is a total stop to building new homes. Yes, if construction does stop, it will be hard on the economy - many jobless and the building material industry will be rocked to the core. But someone, please give me an alternative solution because increasing the housing supply can't be the answer.
      View article »
    • ON: Sat Apr 12th 09:18 AM
      Commented on:
      The Fed is Terrified
      There is only one solution to our economic dilemma - redistribution of the wealth. It is both absurd and crass that 10% of the population holds 90% of the wealth.

      I suggest that for those of you that think that the answer is to punish all the people who have been living beyond their means, you can rest easy, as that is exactly what is happening and is certain to continue. By one estimate, at least $2 trillion of equity will be eradicated as the result of this housing bust. Will the market come back? Will housing prices increase? Maybe someday but given the systemic problems in the lending system that led to this bust, it is unlikely that credit will be eased and even if it were, will there be investors willing to buy sub-prime mortgages again? The only way home equity will increase will be as mortgage principal is paid down. With retirement looming, many of us baby boomers, who have endured many inflationary periods since entering the work force and who have seen a large percentage of our jobs and careers lost and/or outsourced to high tech and third world countries, now face the prospect of little or no retirement savings, social security nor equity from our homes. Given the foreseeable future, we are in for hyperinflationary times and with no medical safety net until we qualify for Medicare and how long or to what level will that remain intact?

      A large percentage of the baby boom generation is going to get completely screwed over. But, I am sure some of you think, we are just being whiney! The irony here is that many of you are the offspring of baby boomers and we brought you into this world, raised you and educated you. It is true we borrowed a lot of money and often lived beyond our means but we also became two income families and took second jobs to raise a family and have some comforts. Now that our kids are adults and prospering in this new high-tech economy, you are ready and willing to throw us under the bus for our errs.
      View article »
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor