Bailout Bill #2: the fight begins

Sounds like the only thing missing is "Solving World hunger". Still don't see why the solution to the S&L "crisis" won't solve the sub prime "crisis". Let them fail ... the FDIC will pick-up the pieces and liquidate assests at market prices.

Anything else is akin to tying leg braces to your 18 month old so he learns to walk. Your short sighted solution does more harm than good.
 
Your short sighted solution does more harm than good.

um, i don't know who you think you are chatting to but (as your comment came right after mine) if you think i have a short sighted solution then i can assure you that i have no solution, i'm no economist. i simply think something should be done to stop a complete collapse. i have no idea what that is. mostly i was merely reporting on what some economist said. there's a big difference between short sighted and thinking outloud, trying to understand all this. perhaps your curt outburst better reflects something short about you.
 
Sounds like the only thing missing is "Solving World hunger". Still don't see why the solution to the S&L "crisis" won't solve the sub prime "crisis". Let them fail ... the FDIC will pick-up the pieces and liquidate assests at market prices.

Anything else is akin to tying leg braces to your 18 month old so he learns to walk. Your short sighted solution does more harm than good.

S&L was a bunch of small banks no one outside the area ever heard of. Today we have the big banks failing first. Stronger ones will take their place, but the fact they are failing is causing a crisis of confidence where banks around the world won't lend to each other or almost anyone else. the way corporate america operates, you have to have short term credit or start laying off people
 
From my reading of the NEW SENATE BILL (which BTW is now 451 pages long) I would not bet on it passing the HOR. The BIG FDIC change EXPIRES on 12/31/2009. What a dumb thing to do (either raise it or don't but a 15 month change makes no sense to me. Everything will be fixed by then? I would not bet on it. And they have loaded it down with a bunch of unnecessary "stuff". I am almost thinking they do not want this thing to pass at all. Yesterday the Senate was not going to go before the HOR now they are going to pass this "new" thing then give it to the HOR, leave town, and say "take it, pass it, or leave it". Talk about arm twisting.
 
a 15 month change makes no sense to me

Anything with an expiry or ridiculous terms on it is simply creating a situation where another bill and renegotiation will have to take place, allowing for more pork and bits of unrelated crap to be stuffed into something that "has to pass by mm/yy". Everyone agrees to it because by the time the next round of negotiations go through, some will have retired, some will have been voted out, and the old guard can let the young turks get a win while still getting what they want.

Standard politics.
 
One thing I'm unclear on: What percentage of the mortgage defaults are financially solvent people walking away from underwater loans due to declining home values, vs. folks actually unable to meet their payment obligations (due to balloon payments, job loss, etc...)? If its primarily the former, is part of the issue that its too easy to walk away once underwater?

This afternoon, I just had a brick contractor (30 years of age), who was here to give me an estimate on some repairs, tell me that 4 houses on his street have been foreclosed. He paid $130K for his house and says that these newly foreclosed homes are going for $40K. He [-]fears [/-]thinks that they will be turned into HUD homes and will attract a low income tenant or owner. He said he plans to give his house back to the bank (even though he can afford to make the payments) because he thinks he'll never be able to sell if for anything close to what he paid for it. His plan is to move further out into the suburbs where he can get a much nicer, larger, newer house for about 40% off what it sold for a few years ago.

This is worrisome.

omni
 
OAG.. yeh, I am seeing the same thing from both sides.. Neither really wants it in any form (though Dems were more on board both at the outset and now with more add-ons .. Rs offered their own add-ons in the fullness of time as well).

Neither wants to be seen as the party that wrecked the deal..
but neither wants to be seen as the party that got the deal done, either!!

It's kind of hilarious to watch them all squirm, especially as they are all getting constituent feedback that is running 100 to 1 or 200 to 1 against it. Yet at the higher level they can't savage each other enough for the other side's not helping in getting "something" done.

What seems to be happening is that each hates it enough to work hard to set up the other party as the wrecker.
 
His plan is to move further out into the suburbs where he can get a much nicer, larger, newer house for about 40% off what it sold for a few years ago.

Somebody needs to tell him "you'll be renting" or "you'll be paying cash" because no lender will touch this stinker.
 
OAG.. yeh, I am seeing the same thing from both sides.. Neither really wants it in any form (though Dems were more on board both at the outset and now with more add-ons .. Rs offered their own add-ons in the fullness of time as well).

Neither wants to be seen as the party that wrecked the deal..
but neither wants to be seen as the party that got the deal done, either!!

It's kind of hilarious to watch them all squirm, especially as they are all getting constituent feedback that is running 100 to 1 or 200 to 1 against it. Yet at the higher level they can't savage each other enough for the other side's not helping in getting "something" done.

What seems to be happening is that each hates it enough to work hard to set up the other party as the wrecker.

Quit being logical, you'll never make it on CNBC.........:D Just kidding, spot on analysis........:D
 
and the House wants a different version now and they will probably fight over it until everyone forgets it. half of europe is now backing all their bank deposits, 3 month t-bill yields are creeping back up and overnight LIBOR yield is down

and it wouldn't surprise me if central banks started cutting rates

Indeed. We can cut, what?, 2% more here before we're at 0%

Not much ammo left on the interest side of the ledger.
 
Lots of interesting conjecture. Lets look at one hard bit of evidence: The folks with the best knowledge of what might be behind these securities (and who work in RE finance for a living) are not rushing in to buy these great bargains. Gee, why would that be? "Here's free money folks, all you want, scoop 'em up while you can!" And yet-nobody thinks they are worth even the beaten down amount. But somehow you have faith that government functionaries, with no "skin in the game" and using my tax dolars, are better able to judge the marketplace and what these securities are worth. That's a leap of faith.

Here's an idea. If you think these securities are such a great deal, buy them with your own money. Do it today before the government rushes in and you'll make even more. Because one ancillary negative impact of government action will be to drive away private investors and risk-takers after the prices get bid up--the window is closing, don't be left behind! Jump in now, let us know how it goes.

Sam I've looked at trying to buying these things but Schwab doesn't offer them only Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac issued MBS which are currently yielding between 5 and 5.50%.

The other problem like most folks on Wall St and most banks I've simply run out of cash to buy things with. I could go on margin but, although I'm an aggressive investor I also am retired and margin investing is too risky.

But fundamentally at 7-8% margin rate the interest I get from these securities doesn't warrant the risk. However, if you'd be willing to loan me money for 10 years at 3.85% (the current 10 year T-Bond) I'd be more than happy to purchase some of these toxic waste securities with double digit returns and large potential capital gains if the housing market stabilizes. Really Sam I'm good for it and 3.85% is more than a money market. I'll PM you with wiring instructions :D

Anyway I think I've demonstrated part of the problem, nobody has cash to buy anything and it is way to expensive to borrow money, because banks don't have any to lend because their capital base has been destroyed. Admittedly because the banks made plenty of mistakes.

You are as usual correct, it is conjecture on my part that Uncle Sam can make money with the Paulson Plan (God knows what Congress will actually pass). I think one of the victims of the current crisis is the efficient market theory. With the price of US corporations (i.e stock market) fluctuating by 500 billion to a one trillion dollars virtually everyday it is obvious that price and the intrinsic value of securities is way out of wack. I've got 100+ year old banks stocks that have been swing widely between the low 20s and the mid 40s for the last year. These aren't internet companies there boring banks. So if the market is constantly mispricing these securities it stands to reason that there is an excellent chance the value of these junk status MBS is also mispriced.

I personally believe the US Treasury bill are way over valued (but there isn't a cost efficient way of betting against them). I look at this as opportunity for US taxpayers to exchange overpriced T-Bills and Bonds for 700 Billion worth mortgages backed by Real Estate that a few years ago millions of people collective pay well over trillion dollars. (i.e. the purchased/appraised value of all of the real estate used as collateral for the mortgage was well over 1 trillion.)

I am not saying I know for sure if the taxpayers will make money. I certainly see the potential for making money. I also think that Treasury is a unique situtation to be profitable due to our low borrowing cost. What I know for sure is when Running Man says categorically there is no way we taxpayers will make money he is full of crap.

Never the less, the pontential profit is a distance second for supporting the Paulson, preventing a collapse of our financial system and protecting the taxpayers multi trillion investment in Fannie and Freddie bonds is the primary one.
 
From my reading of the NEW SENATE BILL (which BTW is now 451 pages long) I would not bet on it passing the HOR. The BIG FDIC change EXPIRES on 12/31/2009. What a dumb thing to do (either raise it or don't but a 15 month change makes no sense to me. Everything will be fixed by then? I would not bet on it. And they have loaded it down with a bunch of unnecessary "stuff". I am almost thinking they do not want this thing to pass at all. Yesterday the Senate was not going to go before the HOR now they are going to pass this "new" thing then give it to the HOR, leave town, and say "take it, pass it, or leave it". Talk about arm twisting.

this whole thing seems like 1907. by the time JP Morgan got a bailout fund ready things calmed down. same here, the congress is doing it for confidence. by the time things are ready to move the markets will probably calm down
 
I am not saying I know for sure if the taxpayers will make money. I certainly see the potential for making money. I also think that Treasury is a unique situtation to be profitable due to our low borrowing cost. What I know for sure is when Running Man says categorically there is no way we taxpayers will make money he is full of crap.


I was a bit overwrought at the prospect of our government throwing our good money after bad, I should not have stated there is not no way.

More to the overall point of liquidity look at GE. They were trying to roll over 96 billion on an ongoing basis of commercial paper. That is over 9 dollars per share and over 50% of annual revenues. In 2000 they had cash flow of 2 bucks per share and are up 50% to 3 bucks per share since then but their long term debt has gone from 80 billion to 346 billion, not even including their other shorter term debt. Any liquidity they get will most likely lead to a retirement of their commercial paper and not return any liquidity to the system. It was just a year ago they wanted to buy 27 billion of their own stock at 40. Now they are selling at 22.5 with a 10 percent interest penalty on top of it. IF the government spent 546 billion to buy all the GE paper, how much would that help the economy? The scope of overleveraging of corporations just seems staggering to me and people are rushing to unwind, the government should not in my crappy opinion leverage itself to delever the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/business/14electric.html

What Buffett's Bet Says About GE - Forbes.com
 
Senate to vote on rescue plan with added tax cut



I am stunned, absolutely stunned. Is this really my country? What has happened to America? Are Republicans iittle doggies you can pacify with a tax-cut bone?

What do tax cuts have to do with whether the basic Paulson proposal is a sound strategy? What happened to the concept of Congress as a deliberative body? I can understand playing stupid political games with minor legislation, but a $700B bill? This has degenerated into a farce.

Socca, I take it you either have no money or have it all stashed in govt bonds and CDs. Because no one with any money at risk would have your attitudes.

Ha
 
I was a bit overwrought at the prospect of our government throwing our good money after bad, I should not have stated there is not no way.

The scope of overleveraging of corporations just seems staggering to me and people are rushing to unwind, the government should not in my crappy opinion leverage itself to delever the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/business/14electric.html

What Buffett's Bet Says About GE - Forbes.com

Fair enough and that is not an unreasonable opinion. I am not happy that we are in a situation where it is necessary to do so.

As a shareholder of Berkshire and modest position in GE (although I have written put options to buy more GE at 25 in Jan.) I am not sure what to think of Buffets deal. Other than the obvious that he got a way better deal on GE stock than I got. It is also obvious to me that I'd rather as taxpayer get 10% loaning money to GE than buying up MBS on over priced real estate.

So maybe the best solutions is to give the 700 billion dollars to Warren tell him to do his best to save the economy and offer to split the profits with the guy.
 
Anyway I think I've demonstrated part of the problem, nobody has cash to buy anything and it is way to expensive to borrow money, because banks don't have any to lend because their capital base has been destroyed.

These folks announced today that they are arranging to get $1 billion in financing to upgrade some movie theaters in the US. So, there's still money out there. Yes, it's not cheap money. The cheap money is gone. The cheap money existed only because the government was artificially making cheap loans possible by removing the element of risk from a large number of loans. Risk is back in the equation (it should never have left), and now the market is over-reacting. There's money out there (many folks on this board have some of it) and it will be loaned to others when interest rates are again at market level (the real market, not the make-believe market the government used to run, where everyone could afford a house).
 
The cheap money existed only because the government was artificially making cheap loans possible by removing the element of risk from a large number of loans.

There's a lot that I'm not following today. Please explain.
 
Socca, I take it you either have no money or have it all stashed in govt bonds and CDs. Because no one with any money at risk would have your attitudes.

Ha

Ha, I have a LOT of skin in this game (to me, at least), but I have somewhat of the same attitude. I understand about politics and compromises and earmarks and all, but this particular bill is supposed to be a response to a crisis, and should be dealt with in a stand-alone manner. I'm also not a Republocrat, so I don't care who is being tossed which bones. But if this is the "crisis" that everyone says it is, the Congress, which is supposed to be a deliberative body, should be capable of standing up and voting based on what they feel is right, not as the result of being bought off.

I believe that a solution needs to be found, but I doubt that what is being put forward is that solution. Haste makes waste, and all that. And although I don't think I've ever agreed with al_bundy before, I would be willing to bet (a small amount) that by the time any gov't brokered solution is in place to fix the problem, the problem will be well on the way to being mended by normal market farces.

I read a quote today by Henry David Thoreau - “This government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way.”

JMHO.
 
There's a lot that I'm not following today. Please explain.

Obviously, the situation is very complex and there's plenty of blame to go around. But, one big part of the present problem is that mortgage loans were very easy to get--laughably easy. When nearly anyone can get access to cheap money to buy a home, then home prices will obviously be bid up. These prices would not have existed had normal, traditional, risk-based loan underwriting been practiced.
There are several reasons that these traditional practices were not followed, but US government policies are at the root of several of them. Most importantly, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were the number one purchasers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages for several years, and they purchased a huge number of mortgage-backed securities. They provided a market for these bad loans/loan products, and so private comapnies produced them. Investors bought these products from these "Government-Sponsored Enterprises" because the market viewed them as being backed by the USG. Investors should have looked inside and seen how crummy the mortgages really were, but they didn't--they wanted the extra yield these products offered.
Here's more on how this worked.

So, the government is largely responsible for the excess in cheap money available to buy homes, and the resultant artificial run-up in home prices. Pumping yet more government money in will not solve the problem--it just kicks it down the road. What will solve the problem is government getting the h*ll out of the mortgage business and letting home prices and mortgage rates naturally reach the market-based rates. When interest rates are higher, more people will make money available to lend. This problem will fix itself without our 700 billion dollars. There may be a case for some legislation, but dumping a truckload of money on this cesspool is not going to make it smell better.
 
The local news just said the bill was passed tonight by the Senate.
 
Just the Senate, which was a done deal. The House won't even get to it until Friday.
 
Passed the Senate. This was never in doubt. Now it has to pass the House, where it failed before. I hope it fails again (in its present form)

Ditto. This is one time where I really hope for congressional gridlock.
 
Back
Top Bottom