PDA

View Full Version : News you haven't heard: housing recovery?



Soflasnapper
09-26-2012, 12:42 PM
Carpe Diem

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Median sales price for new homes sold in August rises to the highest level since March 2007, second highest median price on record</span>
Mark J. Perry | September 26, 2012, 10:43 am

http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/newhomes-600x413.jpg

Here (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/median-sales-price-for-new-homes-sold-in-august-rises-to-the-highest-since-march-2007-second-highest-price-on-record/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some highlights from today’s report on new home sales from the Census Bureau:

1. At a seasonally adjusted annual rate, 373,000 new single-family homes were sold in August, a slight decrease from July’s total of 374,000 home sales, but 27.7% above August sales last year, following 26% year-over-year gain in July. August marks the 11th straight month of annual sales gains for new homes, a sales streak that hasn’t happened since 2005.

2. The median sales price for new homes surged by almost 17% from a year earlier to $256,900 in August, the highest median price since March 2007, almost five and one-half years ago, when the median price set a monthly record of $262,600. The August median sales price is the second-highest in history, not adjusted for inflation.

3. The months supply of homes in August was the same as July at 4.5 months, which is the lowest inventory level of new homes since 2005.

MP: With the median new home price in August at the second highest level in history and just 2 percent off the record high in 2007, we have more evidence that 2012 will go down as the “year of the U.S. housing recovery.” </div></div>

Gayle in MD
09-26-2012, 02:01 PM
OMG! I hope queen Ann doesn't fly this week!

That smoke will be rolling out of her ears again!


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

cushioncrawler
09-26-2012, 04:10 PM
THE USOFA HAZ TURNED THE CORNER.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/imagesCA1NO5AF.jpg

cushioncrawler
09-26-2012, 04:11 PM
BUT WILL THEUSODA EVER RETURN TO THE GOODOLDAYS.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/imagesCAB28QG2.jpg

cushioncrawler
09-26-2012, 04:11 PM
MODERN GREEN SUBDIVISIONS ARE THE ANSWER.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/untitled.jpg

Qtec
09-27-2012, 04:16 AM
I have a few points.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 23pt'>NEW</span> RESIDENTIAL SALES IN AUGUST 2012</div></div>

ie NEW houses. Houses that have never been lived in before. A very SMALL part of the market.

Secondly, its all BS. Its a scam.

Are they trying to say ALL house prices are going up, even when there are millions of foreclosures or potential foreclosures?

We all know that the banks are gaming the market by <u>not </u>putting 100,000s of houses on the market, so as to try and keep the prices artificially high.

Also, your link is to the AEI.!!!!!! You can't take anything they say at face value.



Q

Gayle in MD
09-27-2012, 06:17 AM
I'm with you, Q., when it comes to the AEI, but most economists think we are seeing pretty reliable signs of a housing recovery, beyond just AEI.

And there are also other indicators, a rise in disposable income, a rise in manufacturing and in consumer confidence. People have been paying down their debt, and they are ready to spend. People who invest are seeing their 401k's recovering, and the market is booming.

I do agree with you, though, there is no question that the banks, and big investors are holding things back, sitting on trillions, and that is why we can't afford Republicans back in office.

Imagaine what the figure would be if we tallied up everything they are sitting on, and everything they are hiding offshore!

Our tax deduction policies need to change so that multi-millionaires and billionaires sitting on trillions of dollars, and/or hiding their income from investments, gaming the system in a way that hurts everyone else, ends.

We have to get rid of Republicans. They are absolutely horrible when it comes to economics, AND foreign policy.

We all know that Republicans have seriously damaged and held back the recovery.

Without the Republican majority in congress, we would be doing even better, far better right now. Without Republican goernors throwing people out of work, we would be down to 7When you look at the charts, its obvious, t.2% unemployment, and the biggest economic dip was created by their outrageous political decidion to block raising the debt ceiling, and damage our credit rating.

That alone should have people running to the polls to vote for Democrats!

G.

Soflasnapper
09-27-2012, 08:45 AM
These are true points you raise, although that the AEI printed the Census findings doesn't make them false. (It's just that they do not cover the entire market, where more houses are not new than are.) Still, I wouldn't be so dismissive of the median new house sale price increases. People buying new houses are chosing them with the used houses available as alternate options, so I doubt new houses prices can rise so much without some differences now in the used homes prices as well.

However, and yes, in the S&P Case/Schiller index of all housing, in the 30 top markets, prices did rise. We'd already seen a volume of sales bottom reached (volume of sales has been increasing, although at lower prices-- no sin there, that's how demand would return, on lower prices). Now, by the C/S report (which I just saw at a different site), it appears the bottom on prices has been reached and that corner turned as well.

Yes, the shadow inventory looms, but without quite the ominous force it once had, as the MERS scam has been increasingly ruled unable to execute a foreclosure in the name of MERS, in jurisdiction after jurisdiction.

eg8r
09-27-2012, 08:55 AM
Great so the median new home prices is at the second highest level in history. What happened the last time they were this high...the bubble bursted.

Prices here in Orlando based on one site I looked at is pretty stagnate. $169,000 for a couple years, last year dropped and this year back to $169,000.

eg8r

eg8r
09-27-2012, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ie NEW houses. Houses that have never been lived in before. A very SMALL part of the market.

Secondly, its all BS. Its a scam.

Are they trying to say ALL house prices are going up,</div></div>LOL, in the beginning you make an effort to point out that the article is talking about new home prices and then ask if they mean "ALL". Did you understand the quote or not?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We all know that the banks are gaming the market by not putting 100,000s of houses on the market, so as to try and keep the prices artificially high.</div></div>This definitely true. A mortgage broker buddy of mine has recommended I hold off on buying a second home to see if the banks are going to free up a bunch of homes which will surely drive the prices back down a bit. Here is Orlando they are already very low however patience may pay off.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-27-2012, 09:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great so the median new home prices is at the second highest level in history. What happened the last time they were this high...the bubble bursted.

Prices here in Orlando based on one site I looked at is pretty stagnate. $169,000 for a couple years, last year dropped and this year back to $169,000.

eg8r </div></div>

In '07, when this last happened (although these are not inflation adjusted figures, so these are lower by that adjustment for inflation), those price levels were supported by every manner of phony mortgage practice imaginable.

The many varieties of phony mortgages are substantially eliminated in these mortgages, particularly the NINJA loans, the 125% loan to price loans, the negative amortization loans, the liar loans, etc.

Achieving these price levels without the fraud driving them is significant, and very different from getting such prices with them. In fact, it shows more a return to trend from market fundamentals of population increase, as the overbuilt situation went to underbuilt in the meantime.

eg8r
09-27-2012, 11:28 AM
LOL, according to sofla we have learned our lesson and there are no crooks out there anymore. Everything is legit and no need to worry about any bubble's bursting again.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-27-2012, 03:26 PM
You ought to produce some of those episodes of bad lip reading, based on how creative, by which I mean, poor, your paraphrasing is.

eg8r
09-27-2012, 08:53 PM
LOL, I am sure you wouldn't like to hear it.

eg8r

Qtec
09-29-2012, 01:36 AM
All I am is saying is that if the normal person reads the headline they might get the wrong impression. All they might see is " home prices going up".

In 2006, when there were 1,000s of foreclosures house prices still went up. The banks were manipulating the market in order to keep prices high and feed the bubble. When the market collapsed, they blamed everybody else.



Q

Soflasnapper
09-29-2012, 09:26 AM
Here's the latest from the S&P Case Shilling survey:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> chart on the previous page depicts the annual returns of the 10-City Composite and the 20-City Composite
Home Price Indices. In July 2012, the 10- and 20-City Composites posted annual increases of 0.6% and 1.2%,
and were up 1.5% and 1.6% for the month, respectively.
“Home prices increased again in July,” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow
Jones Indices. “All 20 cities and both Composites were up on the month for the third time in a row. Even better,
16 of the 20 cities and both Composites rose over the last year. Atlanta remains the weakest city but managed to
cut the annual loss to just under 10%.
“Digging into the numbers, 15 cities and both Composites had stronger annual returns in July’s report. New
York was the only city with a worse 12-month decline in July than June. Dallas and Washington D.C. saw no
change in their annual rates. Cleveland and Detroit saw annual rates decelerate in July versus June, although
they remain positive for both cities.
“The news on home prices in this report confirm recent good news about housing. Single family housing starts
are well ahead of last year’s pace, existing home sales are up, the inventory of homes for sale is down and
foreclosure activity is slowing. All in all, we are more optimistic about housing. Upbeat trends continue. For
the third time in a row, all 20 cities and both Composites had monthly gains. Stronger housing numbers are a
positive factor for other measures including consumer confidence.
“Among the cities, Miami and Phoenix are both well off their bottoms with positive monthly gains since the
end of 2011. Many of the markets we follow have seen some decent recovery from their respective lows – San
Francisco up 20.4%, Detroit up 19.7%, Phoenix up 17.0% and Minneapolis up 16.5%, to name the top few.
These were some of the markets that were hit the hardest when the housing bubble burst in 2006. The 10-City
has increased 7.4% and the 20-City 7.8% since their recent lows. The positive news in both the monthly and
annual rates of change in home prices over the past few months signals a possible recovery in the housing
market.”

[...]

In July 2012, all 20 MSAs and both Composites posted positive monthly gains. Fifteen of the MSAs and both
Composites were up 1.0% or more. Miami, with a +2.1% monthly change, was the only city to record a higher
monthly gain in July versus June. San Diego had a 1.1% monthly increase in July which is the same as its
June gain. The remaining 18 cities and two Composites had lower monthly returns in July versus June, albeit
all positive.
Atlanta, Detroit and Las Vegas continued to post average home prices below their January 2000 levels.
Cleveland had finally moved past its January 2000 base level with last month’s June report and continued
posting increasing levels with a +102.02 print in July.
The table below summarizes the results for July 2012. The S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices are revised
for the 24 prior months, based on the receipt of additional source data. More than 25 years of history for these
data series is available, and can be accessed in full by going to http://www.homeprice.standardandpoors.com.</div></div>

Their main page, linked here. (http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff--p-us----)

The report referenced is their newest press release pdf, a link to which is prominently found toward the top of the page.

This survey shows that indeed, prices in general have stabilized, hit the bottom and come up off the bottom, and are now on a positive growth track as to prices. And have been now for a bit of time.

So the import of the first report is not exactly creating a false impression. It may be creating an exaggerated impression, but one that remains true regardless.

Qtec
09-29-2012, 01:33 PM
I guess it all depends where you are.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> New Jersey currently suffers the second-highest foreclosure rate in the nation, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. However, Hoffer reports that more than a year after the Homekeeper Program was launched, the state has doled out only $4 million, of $300 million available, to 498 families -- while nearly 2,000 applicants have been denied.

During a press conference Monday in Long Branch, NJ, Hoffer clashed with Christie over the program's inaction. The governor claimed that more funds hadn't already been allocated because of a court-imposed moratorium on foreclosures. "Our policies were put on hold, waiting to see what the courts were ultimately going to do on foreclosures," Christie said. "And that's why we haven't moved any more quickly than we have already."

Hoffer, however, disputed the legitimacy of that claim: "The moratorium did not stop other states from helping families already facing foreclosure."

Richard Constable III, appointed by Gov. Christie to head New Jersey's Department of Community Affairs, acknowledged to the Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this month that the Homekeeper Program had been slow to carry out its mandate,, though he did not mention a moratorium as a reason for the sluggish rollout. "I took a hard look at this program, and I didn't like the results that I saw," he said.

Meanwhile, many applicants remain in limbo. Brenda Klein, who was interviewed by WABC, says that she <u>waited a full year </u>between submitting her request for foreclosure assistance, and receiving an unsatisfying answer from the New Jersey government--that she was no longer eligible because she'd fallen too far behind on her payments.

"We weren't the ones that took the time to make the [back payments] build up," she said. "If you'd taken a month, maybe two, we would have qualified.</div></div>

The market is still being manipulated.

Q

Soflasnapper
09-29-2012, 02:10 PM
It's true, there is a shadow inventory of to-be-foreclosed homes that haven't yet been foreclosed upon, that will increase the supply of homes for sale once they begin to come into the market.

That should by normal supply demand relationships cause the prices of homes to soften if not decline.

Still, it is not wrong to look for intermediate inflection points, where volume of sales, and median prices of sales, have turned a corner (in this environment, with the shadow inventory held off market). That has to take place before any real total recovery is possible.

So noting these turning points have occurred already is not deceptive, unless claimed to be something it is not.

Frankly, I doubt the housing market will recover to bubble levels within our lifetime, when all is said and done, and what's more to the point, why should we want it to? It seems the only way that could happen is another bubble market.

LWW
09-29-2012, 03:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All I am is saying is that if the normal person reads the headline they might get the wrong impression. All they might see is " home prices going up".

In 2006, when there were 1,000s of foreclosures house prices still went up. The banks were manipulating the market in order to keep prices high and feed the bubble. When the market collapsed, they blamed everybody else.



Q </div></div>

America is a nation with the rough population of Eurabia ... which means there are thousands of foreclosures every year and that you have no idea WTF you are talking about.

Qtec
09-30-2012, 03:04 AM
IMO there are many things driving the prices up. Thetwo main factors are the banks keeping houses off the market and negative equity.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scott Andresen would love to sell his Seattle house. He just can't afford to.


The 41-year-old policeman and his wife, Rebecca, an environmental consultant, bought the house six years ago. Because of falling prices, they now owe at least $25,000 more on it than it's worth.

The couple would like to move to a better neighborhood with better schools for their children, ages 7 and 4. But they'd have to write a check to cover the difference.

"We can't get out, because it would be too expensive," Andresen says. "It's very frustrating."

Homeowners like the Andresens inhabit just about every housing market nationwide, and their reluctance to sell is having an unexpected impact on the U.S. housing market, which is showing signs of stabilizing after years of declining prices.

Rather than a housing market defined by weak demand and falling prices, the market is now being hampered by a restricted supply of homes for sale as demand improves. That's leading to multiple offers in dozens of markets, rising prices in some and a more volatile housing recovery than many expected.

"When you get (houses priced) under $125,000, it's like a frenzy," said Linda Schlitt-Gonzalez, owner-broker of a Coldwell Banker franchise in Vero Beach, Fla. "It's not unusual to have five offers."

Negative equity, also known as being underwater, is a big part of the issue. Nationwide, almost three of 10 homeowners with mortgages have no equity in their homes or less than 5% equity, says market researcher CoreLogic. Those homeowners would have to write a check in a traditional sale, so many are not selling. Other homeowners, seeing prices rise or stabilize after falling for six years, are holding out for more price increases, Realtors and real estate experts say. </div></div>

link (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/story/2012-07-02/home-sellers-underwater-real-estate-prospects/55989634/1)

I reckon if you really had a free market on houses, prices would be lower than they are now.

Q

Qtec
09-30-2012, 03:07 AM
I agree with your buddy. Wait a bit and then borrow as much as you can.


Q

Soflasnapper
09-30-2012, 11:55 AM
Negative equity (being underwater on your loan to house value) is still prevalent, but it has come down, as in millions of home owners are now no longer underwater.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And not all homeowners with negative equity are deeply underwater. About 40 percent owe 1 to 20 percent more than their home is worth, which is “fairly modest” negative equity, said Stan Humphries, Zillow’s chief economist. About 15 percent of borrowers — or about 2.4 million — owe more than double what the property is worth.</div></div>

From May, NY Times (http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/most-underwater-homeowners-still-paying-mortgages/)

As of the time of that report, there had been a minor tickup of the underwater rate:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The percentage of underwater borrowers, 31.4, is up slightly from 31.1 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, according to Zillow’s “negative equity report,” released Thursday.</div></div>

This doesn't show the more current drop in the underwater rate.

And it should be noted that as many of these forecloseable homes that are in the shadow inventory have robo signer and/or MERS problems, they may not ever come out of the shadow, and never become an addition to inventory. Because the lenders screwed up their chain of ownership in the hypothecation process (securitization), and lost legal standing to re-gain monies they'd already been paid for when they sold the note into the securitization pool.

LWW
09-30-2012, 12:01 PM
Prices are back to the levels of 2005 ... which is in itself dubious ... production is on par with 40 or o so years ago, and th O-cult celebrate?

Do y'all ever actually think these things through?

eg8r
09-30-2012, 12:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true, there is a shadow inventory of to-be-foreclosed homes that haven't yet been foreclosed upon, that will increase the supply of homes for sale once they begin to come into the market.</div></div>Probably happen after the elections. Banks are thanking Obama for the bailout by artificially keeping inventory as low as possible to help keep prices "stabalized" (using that loosely). Once he is in again the banks can open the floodgates. Hopefully I can find a great deal at that time.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-30-2012, 12:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prices are back to the levels of 2005 ... which is in itself dubious ... production is on par with 40 or o so years ago, and th O-cult celebrate?

Do y'all ever actually think these things through? </div></div>

Back to '05 pricing only by nominal median price, unadjusted for inflation, so these new semi-tie dollar amounts are not as close to tieing the prior record for median sales price as it appears. They are still down the inflation-adjustment premium, at least.

But your comment is doubly dubious itself.

NOBODY is particularly trumpeting these results in celebration. It's not a credible celebration-deserving factoid, as clearly enough, housing remains in the doldrums and still is in a heap of trouble. Obama and Co. would not dare trumpet this turn as a successful resolution of housing issues, and haven't.

That said, before things can reach full recovery, they have to turn around the declines. That inflection point, showing signs of the fall stopping, and the climb back up beginning, is exactly the precursor to any recovery, and a welcome sign. It is hardly a valid criticism of noting the inflection point has been passed and things are beginning to improve to snark that there is still a long way to go. Which is true enough, but irrelevant to the good news that a turnaround is evident on the numbers.

Soflasnapper
09-30-2012, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's true, there is a shadow inventory of to-be-foreclosed homes that haven't yet been foreclosed upon, that will increase the supply of homes for sale once they begin to come into the market.</div></div>Probably happen after the elections. Banks are thanking Obama for the bailout by artificially keeping inventory as low as possible to help keep prices "stabalized" (using that loosely). Once he is in again the banks can open the floodgates. Hopefully I can find a great deal at that time.

eg8r </div></div>

Banks have slowed foreclosures to make more money later in a stronger market, and to avoid having to put up still more reserve collateral for loans officially declared non-performing. Which is to say, for their own purposes, unrelated to gratitude, which they mainly do not have. Where did you ever get the idea that the original green-shade money guys-- the banks-- make financial decisions on large parts of their portfolios out of favoritism or gratitude?

Banks KNOW how to repay people if they want to, at far lower cost than a wholesale change of financial practices on billions of financial holdings to their financial detriment-- it's called campaign donations, which are far cheaper. Augmented by favoritism in personal loan letting, ala the Friends of (the name of the former head of Countrywide, forget just now). Politicians are swayed by a point or two less on their personal mortgage, and surely banks are savvy enough to buy their influence cheaply, not dearly.

Beyond that, of course, they are finding themselves UNABLE to foreclose, because of the discovery and court rulings concerning their robo-signing fraudulent foreclosures, and the problem they have in that the originating bank SOLD that mortgage to the securitization market, and thus have NO money OWED TO THEM, in their name. And the kicker? NO ONE ELSE has entitlement to foreclose either, in that system, especially not MERS (the nominal holder of the notes, but a party that never gave any money, and is purely a nominee).

eg8r
09-30-2012, 06:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Banks have slowed foreclosures to make more money later in a stronger market</div></div>There won't be one. The prices are going up incrementally. Once the banks unload what they are holding on to the prices drop again. This doesn't even include the daily foreclosures still going on.

They owe Obama and are helping him out. If they were to unload and crash the market now Obama would be done. Anyone disagreeing with that has their heads in the sand.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-30-2012, 06:45 PM
If they were to unload and crash the market now Obama would be done.

More importantly, and more the reason they're doing it, is that they'd lose a lot of money themselves. And possibly be obviously insolvent, instead of being able to pretend they are not insolvent.

So, actually, the only reason they WOULD do that would be to harm Obama, and only at their own great loss of capital.

eg8r
09-30-2012, 07:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More importantly, and more the reason they're doing it, is that they'd lose a lot of money themselves.</div></div>That is handled by their tax attorneys. They will not stomach those losses. The same reason why they allow short sale and other losses to happen. Again, we know you have your marching orders but then again I was talking to sane people who are looking at what is really happening. They are artificially holding the market by its neck until after the election.

eg8r

LWW
10-01-2012, 03:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Banks have slowed foreclosures to make more money later in a stronger market</div></div>There won't be one. The prices are going up incrementally. Once the banks unload what they are holding on to the prices drop again. This doesn't even include the daily foreclosures still going on.

They owe Obama and are helping him out. If they were to unload and crash the market now Obama would be done. Anyone disagreeing with that has their heads in the sand.

eg8r </div></div>

His claim borders on insanity.

Homes require upkeep ... and when left empty they are prone to being vandalized and stripped of plumbing and wiring.

Qtec
10-01-2012, 03:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> They owe Obama and are helping him out. If they were to unload and crash the market now Obama would be done. Anyone disagreeing with that has their heads in the sand.

eg8r </div></div>

You blame Obama for the mess CREATED under GW BUSH???????????

The banks do what they to to maximise their profit, irrespective of who is in the WH.

Anyway, why would they want to crash the market when they spend so much time keeping prices high?



Q

LWW
10-01-2012, 03:53 AM
And ... ?

Soflasnapper
10-01-2012, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More importantly, and more the reason they're doing it, is that they'd lose a lot of money themselves.</div></div>That is handled by their tax attorneys. They will not stomach those losses. The same reason why they allow short sale and other losses to happen. Again, we know you have your marching orders but then again I was talking to sane people who are looking at what is really happening. They are artificially holding the market by its neck until after the election.

eg8r </div></div>

Getting this straight, you claim the banks prefer the guy who wants to raise the top marginal rate from 35% to 40%, raise cap gains rates from 15% to 20% or more, and sock higher brackets with another roughly 3% for Obamacare, over the guy who will reduce the top rate from 35% to 28%, keep cap gains and dividend tax rates at 15% or zero them out completely, and kill Obamacare and its extra 3% tax on top of the 5% on the top rate.

That's a ridiculous assertion. Of course, they prefer Romney, and they would do what they could to get Romney elected, short of losing billions of dollars in the here and now by doing what you say they'd otherwise do, except they favor Obama?

That doesn't pass the laugh test. Yes, you are right about the shadow inventory, but then lose it on the rest of the analysis, which is absurd.

Gayle in MD
10-01-2012, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More importantly, and more the reason they're doing it, is that they'd lose a lot of money themselves.</div></div>That is handled by their tax attorneys. They will not stomach those losses. The same reason why they allow short sale and other losses to happen. Again, we know you have your marching orders but then again I was talking to sane people who are looking at what is really happening. They are artificially holding the market by its neck until after the election.

eg8r </div></div>

Getting this straight, you claim the banks prefer the guy who wants to raise the top marginal rate from 35% to 40%, raise cap gains rates from 15% to 20% or more, and sock higher brackets with another roughly 3% for Obamacare, over the guy who will reduce the top rate from 35% to 28%, keep cap gains and dividend tax rates at 15% or zero them out completely, and kill Obamacare and its extra 3% tax on top of the 5% on the top rate.

That's a ridiculous assertion. Of course, they prefer Romney, and they would do what they could to get Romney elected, short of losing billions of dollars in the here and now by doing what you say they'd otherwise do, except they favor Obama?

That doesn't pass the laugh test. Yes, you are right about the shadow inventory, but then lose it on the rest of the analysis, which is absurd. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>He has no knowledge of economics!</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you feel like a big boy now that you get to use those "grown up words"? It looks juvenile. Besides that, customers do not create, that is the reason why they are called consumers. I am well aware of the role each group plays in the economy but the fact is customers do not create anything other than demand and demand cannot be there if the product was not there in the first place, which it cannot be there unless someone with some money fronted a business and hired people to perform the job to create that good or service to be sold.

eg8r


</div></div>



/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
10-01-2012, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You blame Obama for the mess CREATED under GW BUSH???????????</div></div>No douchebag. Follow along, I am blaming the banks for holding on to the properties till after the election so that the housing industry does not crash again before people can vote for Obama. If the housing market crashed now that would spell the end for Obama. So, to repay Obama for bailing out the banks they are holding on to the properties till after the election.

eg8r

eg8r
10-01-2012, 01:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Getting this straight, you claim the banks prefer the guy who wants to raise the top marginal rate from 35% to 40%, raise cap gains rates from 15% to 20% or more, and sock higher brackets with another roughly 3% for Obamacare, over the guy who will reduce the top rate from 35% to 28%, keep cap gains and dividend tax rates at 15% or zero them out completely, and kill Obamacare and its extra 3% tax on top of the 5% on the top rate.

That's a ridiculous assertion.</div></div>Obama has already proven he is soft on banks and Wall St. For you to think he will ever be able to get all of those increases in place shows you are the ridiculous one. A debt is a debt and they are paying it off now.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-02-2012, 10:17 AM
It's true, likely through Geithner's influence, that Obama has been somewhat soft on banks and Wall Street. It's also true that although his actions have displeased those wanting him to be tougher on them, that he still did enough to make them angry with him. Dodd-Frank, for all its deficiencies, is not what they wanted, even in the watered down compromised way they helped force on the Congress when it was passed.

So, a) they still don't like ANY regulation, and there has been some under this president, but more importantly, b) they have an ALTERNATE play now (Mr. Romney) that is far more to their liking. Romney has picked up a lot, maybe most, of Obama's money from Wall Street and the banks. They clearly favor HIM, and are 'voting' with their money in their best interests.

Since they clearly prefer Romney, that they are helping out Obama is a confusing theory that is simply not credible, as there are ample other explanations for their behavior regarding foreclosures. I mentioned a couple of obvious legal problems they have, which are real and severe. You ignore the alternate explanations, having nothing to say about them evidently, and push your now-out-of-date, and so, ridiculous, theory.

As to the hike in the top marginal tax rate I mentioned, which you say would be impossible to get accomplished, actually, NOTHING needs to be done to make that happen. It's the current law, and comes into effect January 1, 2013. STOPPING that from happening would be the trick, and the hard thing to get done. Same with the extra 3% Obamacare tax that is the current law. If Obama gets back in, Obamacare stays in place (if only by his veto power), and that hike kicks in. Their only chance to avoid that one is to get Obamacare repealed, and that will require a Romney win.

It's already been signaled that the Democratic Party plan is to let Taxmaggedon (TM) occur (let the law take its course), and THEN, restore the tax rate cuts to everybody on all the lower brackets. (Which saves even the top bracket guys about $3k or something.) This provides the Dems with a lot of leverage, and does not require the GOP to vote for a tax increase. They'd still be voting (then) for a tax cut, as they'd prefer.

eg8r
10-02-2012, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they have an ALTERNATE play now (Mr. Romney) that is far more to their liking. Romney has picked up a lot, maybe most, of Obama's money from Wall Street and the banks.</div></div>I have been interested in this but haven't really looked into it. Since you have which site is providing this info? I am interested in seeing comparisons for Obama between last election and this one, and comparisons of Wall St money for Obama and Romney.

If the banks dumped their inventory Obama would start packing today. The banks are absolutely helping keep Obama in a close race with Romney.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-02-2012, 11:57 AM
OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php)

I linked to the presidential fund raising summary page, and it shows the top 5 or so sources of money. If from a corporate name, meaning either corporate PAC monies and/or corporate employees' contributions, combined. Here are Romney's top donors. Obama has only his first place donor source as high as Romney's 5th place donor source, and has no banks or Wall Street firms among his top 5.

Mosey around that site for close to current accountings (but they rely on FEC filings, so as of the last month's ending, there will be another update due soon).

1 Goldman Sachs $891,140
2 Bank of America $667,139
3 JPMorgan Chase & Co $662,719
4 Morgan Stanley $649,847
5 Credit Suisse Group $554,066
View Top Contributors for All Candid.