|  home  |   My Profile  |   The Forum

Got Foreclosures?

Chuck Ponzi July 22nd, 2008

It’s no secret that almost every real estate blogger is talking about the unbelievable level of foreclosures. The mainstream media has latched on as well:

Foreclosures across the state surged to a 20-year high during the last three months, as tens of thousands of additional Californians lost their homes and more than 100,000 neared the brink.

Notices of default, the first step in foreclosure proceedings, rose nearly 125 percent from a year ago during the second quarter and trustee deeds recorded, which reflect the actual homes taken back, soared more than 260 percent, according to research firm DataQuick Information Systems.

But, this doesn’t even come close to telling the full story. Fact is, it isn’t the highest foreclosures in the last 20 years, which would imply that it was higher 21 years ago. Not so. In fact, these are the highest foreclosure statistics EVER.

Noone demonstrates that better than BubbleTracking in the update to the LA Times graph of foreclosures. Thanks OCRenter!

What’s noteworthy is the backstory to the image. The original LA Times article was somehow attempting to soothe buyers that the real estate market was healthy, in part because foreclosures were at historic lows.

Even more onerous than the picture above is another factoid of the story.

The number of defaults and foreclosures were the highest in DataQuick’s statistics, which go back to 1992 and 1988, respectively. Among homeowners who fall into default, an estimated 22 percent now emerge from the foreclosure process by catching up on their payments, refinancing or selling. That’s down from 52 percent a year ago.

That’s an incredible fact. In other words, 78 Percent of those entering the foreclosure process end up going through foreclosure. Considering that there is a record number of notice of defaults, we are ensuring years worth of upcoming foreclosures to push down prices. Recent report have showed that banks are swamped simply with the volume current in process and unable to expand to the need. Early in the bubble blogging world, more than 90% of those who received a notice of default were able to cure their delinquency due to quckly rising prices. Now, with prices falling 30% or more per year, one misstep is a lucky break for a would-be homeowner to simply walk away.

Remember, it’s a wonderful life

Chuck Ponzi July 15th, 2008

Even with all of the headlines out there, and with pretty much everything looking as black as it has been for a long time… we saw this coming, and we can see what’s on the other side.

It’s always blackest before the light. I don’t know exactly when the panic will end, but it always does, just like the euphoric mania that preceded it.

Great Minds Think Alike

Chuck Ponzi July 10th, 2008

Almost as fast as I suggested 3 days ago that nationalization of Fannie and Freddie was likely, it seems that everyone has jumped on the bandwagon despite assurances.

Will they be nationalized?

Does it matter?  Lending is changed forever.

Fannie and Freddie are going to have a threesome with Uncle Sam.  Dirty, ugly, and seemingly unavoidable after 2005.  It just had to happen, the whole world went mad with real estate.  This place seems so F@$&#D up.  I am now worried more about serious social unrest coming in parts of the US.  I’m pretty ticked off and I’ve got a lot, think about those who have lost jobs and have lots of time on their hands.  I’m just sayin’, I think lawmakers need to be careful when they start committing taxpayers’ money.  It is ours, after all.

An Inexact And Unscientific Price Study

Brad_Davidson July 8th, 2008

June Sales and Future Median Prices

You’re going to hear it here first. Data Quick will be coming out with their sales figures for June in the next week but I’m going to try and beat them to the punch each month. I don’t know how my numbers are going to measure up in comparison with Data Quick’s far more detailed studies but I’m going to give it a shot. What I think will be very interesting is using pending sales to try and predict future median prices.

Here goes!! According to the totals on the MLS website, June home sales in Orange County totaled 2,176 residential properties. These are mainly resale homes as the majority of new homes are not listed in the MLS. The median sales price of these homes was approximately $475,000.

According to the MLS, May sales totaled 2,135 properties with a median price of $480,000. According to Data Quick and as published in the OC Register, there were 2,266 sales and the median price was $485,000. Given the disparity in the total sales numbers, I’m content with the $5,000 price difference and if the June number is within $5,000 of $475,000 it’s all good.

I’ve always thought that the data provided on homes sales was of marginal value. I’ve long realized that the sales figures as published by the media are a lagging indicator. The 2,176 sales in June are deals that were negotiated in April and May, some I’m sure in March. In essence the median sales figures are two months old.

As of July 7, 2008 residential listings, categorized as pending sales or in back up offers total 4,183 properties. I’ve been tracking this number for the past few months and find it interesting that there are typically twice as many pending sales and back up offers as there are closed sales for the prior month.

A far more interesting number I’ve been tracking is the median list price of the homes categorized as pending or in back up offers.

I wanted to come up with a median sales figure that would be more current and perhaps be a better market gauge than numbers that were essentially two months old. I first tracked the list price of homes in pending sales on April 31, 2008. This is the unscientific part because I’m tracking the price the properties are listed at, not the sales price. While unscientific, my first set of numbers hold up remarkably well. The median listed price of pending sales and back up offers was $475,000 as of April 30, 2008. The same price as I show for closed sales for the month of June 2008!

While I have read that the median sales price number has ticked up a bit, it’s not what I see in pending sales. For the 4,183 pending sales as of July 7, 2008, the median list price is $439,000. If that number were to hold up when the actual sales figures for August are released in September, it would be a continuing slaughter for the OC real estate market. I think the median number will be higher because there are a lot of short sales and REO’s in the pending sales that actually sell for over the list price.

Then again, when I first ran these numbers in April and came up with the $475,000 median, data Quick had just released the March numbers showing a median of $506,000. $475,000 seemed pretty low then too.

I hear Orange County is looking for a new real estate oracle now that Gary Watts has publicly apologized for being wrong. I’ll track these number every month and report here and see how I do.

Brad Davidson
We Help-U-Buy Realty

Can You Say Systemic Risk?

Chuck Ponzi July 7th, 2008

Anyone who hasn’t seen the charts for Freddie Mac (FRE) should really take a look at them.  This is definitely a crash in the making.  As of this writing, FRE is down 22% today on news that FRE and FNM CDSs have widened 10BPS.  That is quite an increase.

FRE CRASH

The funny thing is, I remember less than a year ago, discussions about how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were well capitalized, preeminently prepared for any disaster, and frankly, as unsinkable as the Titanic.  Little good that has done.  We may be witnessing a historic crash of epic proportions, greater by far than the crash we have seen to date.  To put it in perspective, FRE and FNM have pretty much been the only thing that have kept the real estate market together in the US over the past year.

Consider for a moment this statement regarding the mortgage insurance statistics from the GSEs.

There are more hard numbers available to support MI’s recent surge. MICA, the trade association representing the private mortgage insurance industry, began reporting rising volume monthly after February 2007. For example, mortgage insurers wrote 190 percent more business this year, through April, than in the comparable period of 2006, when subprime/Alt-A were in their heyday.

To put that sort of gain into proper context, consider that even GSE production is only up 160 percent — and they are doing an estimated 80 percent of all new mortgage lending. By inference, MI providers have made huge gains in market share.

Let that sink in for a moment:  GSEs are doing an estimated EIGHTY PERCENT of all mortgage lending, up 160 percent.  IN AN ACTIVELY FALLING MARKET.  Any implied “worst case scenario” imagined last year of the US government bailing out the grossly irresponsible GSE lending facilities is quickly not only becoming a reality, but would represent a necessity unless the entire lending business  in the US becomes STATE OWNED.

State owned lending?

Is that such a bad idea?  I mean, we pretty much have so many controls that we expend an enormous amount of government money in oversight, what’s so wrong with giving the federal government the right to nationalize the largest lenders as they fail?

I’ll write the next part only partially tongue in cheek.

Lending is perhaps one of the great debatable rights of Americans in the 21st century.  We have become so conditioned by its availability to believe that it is owed to us.  We need it, we want it, we should have it.  If we want to create our own financial ruin, and by extension the country’s entire financial ruin, we should be able to do so.  It is our right as Americans.  By this rationale, we should allow all Americans the right to open access to low-cost lending much like clean air, clean water, food and drugs free of harmful contaminants, and an interstate transportation system.

For example, if free enterprise were required to finance our transportation systems, we would be required to pay for every trip we consume on local and long-distance roads.  This is where economics has a hard time playing the role of moral coach, because, frankly, Economics is concerned with the free market and the most efficient method of delivering the utility people desire.  Governments have typically only concerned themselves with PUBLIC NEEDS.  Therefore, the big question is, is real estate lending a PUBLIC NEED?

I am certain that many could make the argument for and against, but perhaps the question needs to be viewed in a longer timeframe.  Is lending STABILITY more important as an ongoing public need to ensure the ability to liquidate lending and homes in an orderly manner?  What controls and insurances should the government provide?  How should the government handle lending standards and manipulation?  Could there be a cross-control against lying using collaboration with the IRS?  What kinds of manipulations would this open up the home lending business to?  Would the government “crowd out” any potential competitors and therefore stifle competition?  Has the current role of home lending harmed the public more than it has helped?

In any case, the general public perception is that home lenders have harmed America, and therefore must be harshly dealt with.  I don’t agree with that.  I personally believe that the problems is on its way to being fixed by the free market, and frankly I’m not happy with the directors of the GSEs getting away with fat pensions, stock options, and the like while the public swallows the bad debt.  On the other hand, it would end, once and for all, the deceptive practices and level the playing field by nationalizing lending.  Frankly put, the government could recapitalize easier than a private entity or a stock-owned entity.

I have to say that I oscillate between incensed outrage and cold acceptance of the reality.  There is no simple answer to that.  Lending has changed forever (hopefully).

What to do, Part Two

Chuck Ponzi July 2nd, 2008

Spending Saving InvestingIf you were reading the previous post, you know that I was helping out a reader with some advice about his home in Arizona and what to do. Tonight I’ll take on the opportunity of what to do with the funds he has available. My next article will tackle when to buy.

Keep in mind that this advice is free, and you get what you pay for. If I were in the same situation, my actions might be different from what I am currently doing simply because each person and situation (as well as timing) is different.

When we left our friend Boomer yesterday, I had advised him to sell his home in Arizona even though that wasn’t the question. There was no question that the house was overvalued based on normal valuation methods. In addition, rates have remained stubbornly high despite a strong easing campaign by the Federal Reserve Bank. To that point, just over 2 years ago, I wrote about interest rates and what that portended:

1. Why are rates going down over time?
2. Is there a savings glut?
3. Why are risk premiums (spread) so small?
4. Are we about the enter a recession like the other small spreads indicated?

To the last point, if we enter a recession, is there any chance that housing can be saved through inflation? Does this mean 70’s style stagflation, or even worse, Japanese style deflation with ZIRP?

If anyone can provide a coherent way that housing can survive in the next 2 years, please tell us now!

At this point, I think we are out of options from a monetary perspective.

1. We already have inflation. Dropping rates will make it much, much worse.
2. Economic growth is slowing despite the mad dash of construction.
3. The credit market is precariously spread and rates could make a mad dash upward if international investors get spooked and run for the exits. The only way to keep the Dollar from meltdown at this point will be to raise rates even more.
4. Housing speculators will be crushed by negative amortization and high interest rates in this event(which arguably should have already happened by now).
5. The sitting inventory will cause personal financial distress and combined with the mad dash of rates could generate a general credit system event.

Either way, we will be seeing a much more favorable buying environment for housing in 3 or more years due to the general stress and turning of investor sentiment.

The backdrop of investor sentiment is the worst that I can remember, insomuch that you have everyone talking about a financial armageddon:

Buffet Struggles

Todd Harrison is 100% Cash

and, don’t forget the fear du jour:

Oil climbs peak, economies plumb depressions and the future will not imitate the past

While I agree that the next 10 years will not look like the last, I do think that there are plenty of opportunities that can be entered into in the next 6 months.

First, I have a couple of predictions:

1. The DOW should hold somewhere between 10,000 and 10,500. If it breaks that support level, even I’ll admit I haven’t a clue where we’re headed there.

2. I do think we are headed for a U-shaped recession, but that we have entered that recession 6 months ago and that we should emerge sometime in the next 18 months.

3. Oil is a bubble, but like the housing bubble, it is unpredictable. But, whatever you do, do not listen to the experts. They are called the experts because it’s up. If it were down, they’d be called idiots like bubble bloggers were circa 2005.

So, what should Boomer do with his new tax-free windfall?

I am also not quite 50% cash now with some recent purchases, but I do have a major cash position. I won’t recommend specific stocks, but there are some areas that I will generally avoid:

1. Oil-centric energy stocks. This is really dangerous because we learned from previous energy shocks, the seeds of conservation are being planted now and will grow into the future. Oil could very easily crash.

2. Look for investments that provide a cheaper way of performing necessities, or some game-changing technology that reinvents its space in a necessity. (wouldn’t we all like to find them) while avoiding consumer-centric stocks (many of which have already been trounced)

3. Small caps that rely heavily on borrowing for operating expenses. Many of these are already having difficulty obtaining financing, or even maintaining revolving lines.

Personally, I have invested most heavily in individual biotechnology stocks that have previously crashed by have a strong pipeline. Pharmas and biotech are littered with the remains and half-eaten carcasses from failed drugs, but entering after a crash for a company with strong fundamentals can provide some cover for potential falls. Personally, I stay away from pharmas with “lifestyle” drugs such as ED treatments in favor of those with candidates for life extending treatments for cancer, heart disease, and alzheimer’s. With an aging boomer population, I believe that we can still see strong growth in these areas in an attempt to “fix” the medicare problem. The companies I look for are those that don’t just extend life, but prevent deterioration of mental and physical faculties as these will be.

Any way you look at it, even investing in CDs is going to provide a better return for the next 5 years than real estate.

Boomer, sell and find a good place to park that money. Find a few funds that you believe in, or do the research yourself. All of the easy money was made and now it’s down to the nitty gritty of investing… yield, growth, and preservation. Good luck

What to do? What to do?

Chuck Ponzi June 30th, 2008

Chile DesertI recently had a reader pose a question to me via email and I’d like to take some time from our normal programming to see what is on his mind

Our friend, let’s call him Boomer for short, had this to ask of me:

Moved my family to La Costa area (renting) and own a house in AZ which I owe $159k at 6.5% (it adjusted and will again in 8 months) The home was at peak worth $750k now $550k I had it rented last yr for $2200 and just signed a 3 yr lease w/ new tennant for $2,400 . I have $600k in cash..Should I pay this house off?? or should I just refi it and hold on to my cash to buy here in S cal in a yr or two?

First off, I have a couple of thoughts:

1. Whoever Boomer is, he’s in a pretty good position, relatively speaking

2. Without knowing his age, I’d say Boomer is likely Early Xer or Late Boomer.

3. The most important point of all (where he wants or needs to live) is missing from the question. Don’t feel bad, many people forget this little factoid. We’ll assume that he wants to stay in SoCal.

I’ll deal with some important points:

1. What is that house in Arizona really worth long-term?

2. What should Boomer do with the cash?

3. What kind of financing makes the most sense?

What is that house in AZ really worth?

This is the question that wasn’t really asked, but needs to be answered, what is the house in Arizona worth, so we can understand what to do with the money.

Well, Arizona is a big place. It has a varied geography with beautiful vistas, scorching deserts, and some bone chilling mountains. You may not like what I have to say, but I’ll say it anyway. Your perception of the world and finances is the boiled frog syndrome. Not that I blame you. You’ve been raised in a world of ever decreasing interest rates and increasing asset values. The world has been kind to you.

You see, the success of many of the past 30 years (primarily the boomer cohort) is a demographic abnormality. Asset values have increased simply because of the organic demand of the Baby Boomer generation and ever increasing ability to finance that demand. In addition to this, an extremely relaxed monetary policy has increased the value of assets consistently since inflation was trounced back in the late 70s.

Unfortunately for many, that time is over.

In the short run, houses are worth what someone else is willing to pay for it, but in the long run, they are subject to the value of the next best alternative, or substitute pricing. The best substitute for owning a house is renting one. In some cases (such as short-term living), renting is almost always the clear alternative.

There are many formulas for determining the value, but one of the simplest mechanisms is the GRM (Gross Rental Multiplier). Basically, this number is used to multiply the monthly rent to arrive at a fair estimate of rental value. However, this is only a rule of thumb and is not to be taken as gospel; lower interest rates (like I expect we will see for the forseeable future) will increase the GRM, while substitutes (buildable land, locus to employment centers) will decrease it. In certain premium places like Orange County, the upper stretch might be 220 or so, while in places like Las Vegas or Arizona, a more reasonable 120 to 160 is more in line with reality. If we err on the side of optimism (150 GRM), this places the current value based on long-term fundamentals at about $360,000, leaving Boomer with a $190,000 premium over its fair value. If I were evaluating a stock, I’d say SELL! SELL! SELL! Doubly more so if Boomer had lived in the house for more than 2 of the last 5 years since he can walk away with pretty much all of the money tax free. It doesn’t matter what the market is selling at, if there is really that much of a disparity, sell that house and get your money! (of course, it doesn’t help that it was just rented, but there are always ways to let a renter go, if the price is right). At a 229 GRM, his house is badly overpriced. When it was $750K, I haven’t a clue how someone could justify that, since it would have been a GRM of 340. Holy smokes!

The future good in some ways, but bleak in other. The Southwest is largely overbuilt in nearly every city with a real dearth of extensive employment opportunities (unless WalMart is your target), and if energy prices remain elevated (not a given in my mind), the ability to pay will deteriorate along with the economy. Boomer may end up with late (or no) payments from his rental. Rentals are generally difficult to manage from a long distance and I would only advise it if you were planning on returning back to the home at some date. However, that would be hard after living in LaCosta for a few years.

In addition, a house can be valued at the cost of money to purchase it. This is a bit more detailed, but an easy rule of thumb is to take the rental equivalent, figure in future increases in rent, and discount the cash flows based on current borrowing rates. It accomplishes about the same thing as GRM, but removes the variability of borrowing rates (especially if it is held as a long-term investment). Using the inverse calculation, you could figure what the “money rent” on the current place would be given a few variables such as the “current value” and current interest rates. Given a current value of $550,000, the money rent valuation using 7% says that Boomer should be collecting about $3,700 in rent on that money. This leaves out taxes, repairs, rental expenses, vacancy, and many other options, so it is by far the most optimistic. By this reckoning, the house would have an imputed value of $357K, pretty darn close to our above $360K value. Sounds like time to sell this puppy no matter how you look at it.

As another way of thinking of it, as interest rates go down, this increases the ability to pay, but that can only increase so much since the risk of buying on low interest rates and being unable to sell into a similar situation will weigh heavily on others’ minds and prices will need to adjust to handle this uncertainty. Since demand for housing is waning as the boomer generation ages in place or downsizes (or simply dies), it is unlikely that houses will be able to continue their rich valuation long into the future without a substantial demographic to replace them with the ability to purchase.

Any way you look at it, the house is currently valued at more than it is “worth”. I can show houses in Orange County that currently have better GRMs than what this house is showing, and Orange County is one of the most overpriced locales in the US.

Tomorrow, I’ll deal with the question of what Boomer should do with his cash. Any thoughts before then?

Oh, Mr Watts, what a tangled web we weave

Chuck Ponzi June 26th, 2008

If you haven’t read the big news lately, I suggest you take a trip on over to Jon Lansner’s blog and read about Gary Watts’ Mea Culpa.  Except if you’re expecting him to admit fault and take the blame for blind boosterism, you’ll need to wait for a while.

What does he blame it on?  Banks.  Duh.  Isn’t that what everyone else is blaming it on?

OK, even in a way, I blame the banks too, but that doesn’t excuse the absolute unbelievable disregard for history, facts, trends, or truth.  However, I will extend an olive branch to Gary:  on one condition.  The condition is that I can get some of his speaking engagements (or at least as a ride along).  I figure that if the real estate industry is so brain dead that it can not only believe his past published crap, but buy it hook line and sinker, I have nothing to lose, and a whole lot of speaking fees to gain.

Some choice quotes from Lansner’s bag:

“I apologize for not knowing what Wall Street did to our mortgages,” Watts told about 360 attendees during the associations annual membership meeting at the Irvine Marriott. “I had no idea how Wall Street restructured these loans.”

No accounting for affordability?  No accounting for sales volume preceding price?   No memory of the written lashings he received publicly on blogs?  Does he have no memory of this?

Didn’t I write some verbal poundings here on this blog?  If searching Gary Watts on Google, my articles and sites linking to my articles were consistently on page 1 in the searches.  Did he really not know what was said about him?

What else?

Watts said today, however, that the tide of foreclosures likely will mean that the housing market will remain soft into 2009. He noted that short sales, or sales with asking prices below the owner’s mortgage balance, are taking at least six weeks to gain approval from lenders, forcing even more homeowners into foreclosure.

“It’s just inevitable that (foreclosures are) going to spill into the 2009 market,” he said. While a rebound still is possible this year, Watts said, he called the market too difficult to predict.

This is one thing that I am agreeing with him on.  The market is in such a disarray that it’s nearly impossible to predict what will happen through 2009.

Despite what the bottom callers are now saying, they are forgetting the achilles heel of housing.  It goes like this:

1.  Banks cannot hold nonperforming assets on their balance sheet.  Regulators will not allow it.  Bond covenants of RMBSs will not allow it.  Noone can hold onto REO property for very long.  They will price it to move, and if it doesn’t move, they’ll cut until it does.
2.  A  recession is a terrible time to sell houses, especially in bulk, or if you have to as above.  Buyers need to be assured they are getting a good deal before they are sure.

3.  Increasing numbers of NODs and NOTs ensures a parabolic supply of future REOs coming on the market for at least another 10 months, possibly as much as 36 months for Orange County because of the impending neg-am crisis about to unfold in 2009 and 2010.

4.  Whatever buyers there are today are still just setting bargaining points for future buyers.  The demographics of the situation does not allow it to be the bottom at this point.

5.  Voila!  The longer to wait will ensure lower prices.  This will likely be the case for the rest of the decade.  We’ll refresh predictions in 6 months.

I’ll part with an analysis of Gary’s assessment:

He also believes that subprime lending gets a bum rap for causing the housing slump. Rising subprime delinquencies merely acted as a catalyst, tipping a range of bundled “structured investment vehicles” into increasing trouble that alarmed Wall Street investors.

“It was so complicated. It’s a nightmare. A real estate credit crunch usually lasts six months, and this one, we’re in it almost a year, and it’s still not straightened out,” Watts said.

Jeebus, this guy is just reams of material.  It wasn’t, and isn’t just subprime.  It’s everything and I’m pretty sure he’s referring to MBS, not SIVs.  Credit crunches have been fairly uncommon, the last one of a similar magnitude in US history might have been the one directly preceding the 1930’s Great Depression.  And, those kinds of credit crunches take years to recover from the immediate effects, but the long-term effects were felt for more than a generation.  It’s likely that Gary Watts will be worm food before we see reckless abandon in lending like that again.  (at least I hope for the sake of all fiat currencies everywhere).

The Banks Get a Beat Down

Brad_Davidson June 24th, 2008

I see every day how badly the banks are getting hammered on the bad loans they made. It’s made me a lot of money shorting banks stocks and writing puts.

Here are some prime examples of the losses they’re taking.

 23 Leeds

23 Leeds Ln., Aliso Viejo

3bdr 2ba 1800 sqft. On the market for $489,000. This house sold for $685,000 in May 2004. We weren’t even at the peak yet in 2004. The buyers put $75,000 down when they bought but pulled that same $75,000 out a year later. The bank eats the entire $685,000 plus the 4 to 6 month of payments that weren’t made plus 6% of the sales price going to commissions.

Let’s add it up: (all rough numbers but close enough)

Price difference    $196,000

Missed payments $ 18,000

Commission           $ 29,000

                               $ 243,000

2 or 3 different lenders are losing $243,000 on a $685,000 loan. That’s a 35% loss. And we’re talking Aliso Viejo, an area of relative stability.

Next.

21595-audubon.jpg

21595 Audubon Way, Lake Forest

3brd 2 ba, 1070 sqft. On the market for $372,500. This house sold for $605,000 in November 2005. 100% financing. Interesting fact…. the Trustees sale date in the tax record is dated 5/29/08. The bank took this property back less than a month ago.

Here’s what the banks lost:

Price difference     $233,000

Missed payments $ 17,000

Commission      $ 30,000

                           $270,000

Lenders are losing $270,000 on a $605,000 loan. That’s a 44% loss. I’m really surprised at how hard hit Lake Forest has been. I’ve always thought of it as a desirable area.

Here is the winner, or loser if you own stock in large lending institutions.

1609-s-woodland.jpg

1609 S. Woodland Pl., Santa Ana

3 bdr 2 ba 1290 sqft. On the market for $305,000. Sold for $587,000 in August 2005. 100% financing through New Century. Plus they got a $25,000 equity loan from BofA in 2006.

Bank Loses

Price difference     $ 282,000

Missed payments  $   17,000

Equity loan             $  25,000

Commission            $  18,000

                                 $352,000

Lenders are losing $352,000 on a $587,000 loan. That’s a 60% Hit!!!! That is a big fat red mark on the balance sheet and there are hundreds more in Santa Ana.

Bailout Plans Stink to High Heaven

Chuck Ponzi June 21st, 2008

If you’re not in the know on the recent bailout news, there are 3 main points to be aware of:

1. It seems that Bank of America essentially wrote the Dodd Bailout Bill along with Countrywide (merger expected soon). They have probably the most to gain with a generous bailout bill. It helps noone since it doesn’t resolve the fundamental problem of affordability in house, in fact it makes the problem worse. Ever wonder why the 90’s in Japan were referred to as the “lost decade”? It’s because their banking system did the same thing we’re trying to do here. Anyone else see the problem with not punishing gambling banks and housing speculators?

2. The “Subprime Six” were a group of lawmakers given special treatment in exchange for what? What exactly did Senator Dodd besides favorable treatment in his housing financing? What else could be lurking in his past? If you haven’t read about the “Subprime Six”, follow the link. Investor Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and the LA times have picked up the story. It’s a story of insider grift and political pandering. If it weren’t so real and true, it might remind me of one of my favorite film lines:

Stuart: Well, it’s a well-known fact, Sunny Jim, that there’s a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as “The Pentavret.” Who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado known as “The Meadows.”
Tony: So, who’s in this “Pentavret?”
Stuart: The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oooh, I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face. “Oooh you’re gonna buy my chicken, oooh…”
Charlie: Dad? How can you hate the Colonel?
Stuart: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly, smartass.

3. For all of the crap that our President Bush gets, at least he has the foresight to threaten a veto to said bill. There should be no bailout, not just because it’s not fair and would embolden speculators, but because it’s destined to put our banking system in jeapordy for the forseeable future with taxpayers footing the bill. It’s generally understood that this bill has to be done and voted on by July 4th if it is to carry. Any senator that signs this (if it passes) is hopefully going to be thoroughly trounced in the upcoming elections. This is not only unreasonable, it’s unamerican. This place is going to hell in a handbasket. If something like that goes through, I’ll be posting a list of every person that voted for it and their political affiliation here as a feature story.

So, what do I recommend? I’d say get a year’s worth of food and 6 month’s worth of remaining expenses together, if our politicians have any say in it, this is going to be one whopper of a crash and accompanying recession. On the lighter side of things, our grandchildren will be still paying so that people like this can “keep” their homes (and by homes, I mean plural, because, isn’t every good American not just entitled, but guaranteed to own more than one house?).

Next »