Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1681.2 | -1.2 | -0.07% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2858.5 | 7.1 | 0.25% |
| Oil (WTI) | 107.6 | 0.2 | 0.18% |
| LIBOR | 0.254 | -0.002 | -0.59% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 81.76 | -0.059 | -0.07% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.94% | -0.03% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 103.3 | 1.0 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 102.5 | -0.2 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 200.7 | -0.2 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 4.58 |
Markets are flattish on no real news. Bonds and MBS are up small, which means that Syria wasn’t figuring in anyone’s market analysis.
Credit isn’t tight for everyone – Verizon just did a $49 billion bond offering at the 10 year + 225. Low interest rates – get ’em while they last. The issue is looking 2x oversubscrbed.
Negative equity took a dive in Q2, according to CoreLogic, with 2.5 million homes dropping below the 100% LTV mark. 7.1 million homes (or 14.5% of homes with a mortgage) still have negative equity. The average LTV of all homes with a mortgage is 62.5. They caution that the recent home price appreciation may not continue at the rapid pace we have been seeing over the past year.
Mortgage applications fell 13.5% last week, primarily due to the Labor Day holiday. Refis were down 20%, while purchases were down 2.6%.
Richmond CA has voted to go the eminent domain route. They intend to use the threat of eminent domain as a club to force lenders to sell the underlying loans at a deep discount to the city. SIFMA has already said that any locality that uses eminent domain will find loans originated in that locality to be ineligible for TBA trading, which makes them more or less unsecuritizable. The mayor is a Green Party Wall Street basher, so this could get interesting. For the hedge fund to be able to make money on this trade, they have to be able to buy the mortgages at a discount to appraised value, which will undoubtedly be a non-starter for the banks.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
” force lenders to sell the underlying loans at a deep discount to the city”
Why even go through the motions. Just take the mortgages. That’s really what they want.
LikeLike
The mayor is a Green Party Wall Street basher, so this could get interesting
That makes him very suspect. But I’m not going to argue any positives to this idea today…………….I got bashed last time and know when to take my losses and run for the nearest exit.
LikeLike
The thing is, if they go this route, they will make it almost impossible to get a mortgage in their city. How is that doing their citizens any favors?
LikeLike
Brent, I’m not disagreeing. I understand the risk there. And I really don’t think it’s a good idea. Sometimes I have to play devil’s advocate here because ATiM seems to officially be a gathering place for Libertarians………………….as opposed to Greens.
“You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall”.
LikeLike
Colorado voters recalled two 2nd Amendment deniers, one of which was the Senate Majority leader.
LikeLike
“You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall”.
Heh.
LikeLike
Eminent domain is a poor substitute for what’s really needed – bankruptcy cramdown.
Since the FHFA has come out against it, I expect the Federal government to preempt it.
LikeLike
jnc:
Eminent domain is a poor substitute for what’s really needed – bankruptcy cramdown.
It’s not really any kind of substitute. If I understand the plan correctly, they aren’t even limiting it to non-performing loans. Any loan with negative equity would qualify.
LikeLike
“force lenders to sell the underlying loans at a deep discount to the city”
I thought they were being forced to sell them to the hedge fund, or are they going to launder it through the government first?
LikeLike
Also, if this goes through, the first time the hedge fund that is the new owner of the mortgages starts eviction proceedings against the homeowner, I will say “I told you so”.
LikeLike
““force lenders to sell the underlying loans at a deep discount to the city”
I thought they were being forced to sell them to the hedge fund, or are they going to launder it through the government first?”
Correct. My bad. The hedge fund buys the loan and mods it. It then gives a kick-back to the city.
LikeLike
eminent domain’s cousin civil asset forfeiture strikes again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/philadelphia-family-loses_n_3899905.html
LikeLike
I believe the track record of weakening property rights hurting the “little guy” to benefit the well off won’t be broken with the new eminent domain initiative.
LikeLike
My favorite line from the comments,
Hastert wasn’t saddled with poo-flinging monkeys that are the teabaggers.
We also masturbate in public!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/11/1238147/-Boehner-forced-to-delay-vote-on-spending-nbsp-scheme#comments
LikeLike
McWing;
We also masturbate in public!
I would suggest that this was a result of the socially crippling effects of having read Atlas Shrugged, but you Teabaggers probably can’t even read at a 6th grade level.
LikeLike
“House Speaker John Boehner’s complicated scheme to pass a budget that defunds Obamacare without really defunding Obamacare has hit a major snag: the far right isn’t buying it. They want the real confrontation: defund Obamacare or shut down government.”
Imagine that, those who were elected to end business as usual have a problem with a BS messaging vote.
LikeLike
Well, in my case, as a product of public education, 3rd grade level is a stretch. That’s why I never was able to get beyond The Fountainhead. (The better story AFAIC)
But the public shit flinging and masturbation? I learned that at TeaBagger school.
Went on a Koch scholarship! Free ride.
LikeLike
“But the public shit flinging and masturbation? ”
Have you considered running for office?
LikeLike
Uh, my real name is Carlos Danger.
LikeLike
Re: the House … the just yanked the CY14 CR. it was supposed to be today, then tomorrow, now its TBD
LikeLike
Re: House. God , I love the TeaBagger caucus !
LikeLike
it’s only 100 degrees in DC today, but it’s frosty in the halls of congress. let’s throw another tire on that fire.
LikeLike
“novahockey, on September 11, 2013 at 1:42 pm said:
Re: the House … the just yanked the CY14 CR. it was supposed to be today, then tomorrow, now its TBD”
Sigh. They really need to learn about incremental victories. I’ll go on record with my prediction that an extended shutdown or debt ceiling breach (defined as over one week) will probably cost the Republicans the House in the 2014 midterms.
LikeLike
So what? If the ratchet of expanding government only goes one way, the fuck it and break the ratchet.
LikeLike
vote scheduled
Tuesday“next week”. we’ll seeLikeLike
bah. now it’s “next week”
LikeLike
was looking for a cable to diagnosis a radio issue in my VW an came across this:
http://www.ross-tech.com/index.html
quoting:
Today, September 11, 2013 (“Patriot Day” in the United States) Ross-Tech is “On Strike”.
We will not answer phone calls or e-mails. We will not conduct business of any sort. Why? We are taking part in a nation-wide protest against completely unconscionable (not to mention unconstitutional) actions by the government of the United States.
We all have the 4th Amendment right to be secure in our papers, effects and lives, including electronic transmissions, until and unless there is a warrant issued detailing a specific alleged offense and identifying the specific items to be searched for or seized. This includes our emails, it includes our phone calls, text messages and the location data generated as a necessity to provide us with mobile services, which we did not consent to be used for any purpose other than providing those services. Yet this constitutionally guaranteed right is being violated on a continuous basis by the NSA, and as we’ve found out more recently, our government has been paying AT&T (and presumably all the other phone companies) to keep records of all phone calls all the way back to 1987. These records are accessible via “administrative subpoenas” issued not by a judge, but by law enforcement agencies such as the DEA.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on September 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm said:
So what? If the ratchet of expanding government only goes one way, the fuck it and break the ratchet.”
No. They got real cuts with the sequester and have a chance to lock them into the baseline. They are blowing it by tilting at Obamacare repeal windmills and at the same time increasing the likelyhood of Republican losses in the 2014 midterms.
LikeLike
J, this is it. Go for the million to one shot. There’s no benefit from my standpoint, in a temporary slowdown in the rate of growth of government. Either hold out for what you want for as long as it takes or quit. This is as big a TeaBagger cohort as we’re ever gonna get
Subsidies start on 1/1, after that we’re fucked. Healthcare that I’m going to want when I’ll need it won’t be available and I’ll be in no condition by then to do anything about it. It’s literally now or never. I realize that Obama won’t sign a repeal, I just want a couple of years delay to try and dismantle this abortion. Once 1/1 arrive w/no changes then what’s the point of having a majority in House? I could give a shit About
Subpoenas power or committee chairmanships.
LikeLike
jnc, I haven’t been following the budget talks very well (organized chaos here lately) but Kevin Drum thinks D’s will roll on a CR that incorporates more cuts, for what it’s worth. Maybe this avoids the defunding the ACA fight? Just thought I’d throw that out there for what it’s worth.
More cuts should make y’all happy.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/democrats-budget-2014-continuing-resolution
LikeLike
Drum’s right, but technically it’s a CR that keeps the FY2013 sequester levels. They’ve already said that they will do that.
That’s what’s been placed in limbo because the Tea Party won’t go along with it unless it also defunds Obamacare which isn’t going to happen.
LikeLike
McWing, it’s much easier to fix Obamacare than it is to repeal it entirely.
The exchanges are not bad policy. Just cut the subsidies down, repeal the employer tax deduction and move Medicare & Medicaid patents into them via a voucher.
LikeLike
jnc:
What about the individual and employer mandates? And what about the mandates on what insurance policies must “cover”?
LikeLike
I need full repeal. To do less is to reinforce the immoral notion that healthcare is a right. I’ll take full suspension of implementation as an alternative.
Plus, I love useless, dramatic gestures. I do want to break the government though.
LikeLike
Individual mandate can be easily replaced with a penalty for those who don’t sign up if they then do so in the future.
Employer can be scrapped, as the goal is to shift to 100% individual plans. See the part about repealing the employer tax deduction for insurance.
I don’t have a problem with there being requirements on what insurance has to cover to be sold in the exchanges. I would prefer to have other options remain available outside the system but that’s not a show stopper for me if the system in general is moved to an individual based system.
LikeLike
jnc:
I think the fundamental purpose of Obamacare is basically to destroy the concept of market based health insurance. That is what the creators of Obamacare ultimately want, and that is what they have designed it to do. So I think it is folly to ever think that the basic structure could be maintained but “reformed” to support and promote a sensible market for individual health insurance.
The primary expertise that makes insurance companies useful is the evaluation and pricing of various individual risk factors amongst a certain population pool. A law which 1) mandates what risks must be covered and 2) mandates the price at which they must be covered effectively eliminates the need for the expertise that insurance companies exist to provide. They become nothing more than administrators of payments, which is precisely the long-term goal of Obamacare’s designers…eliminate the function that insurance companies serve, and then point out that they are simply scraping off a profit (and thus increasing costs!) performing a function that the government can perform itself. Voila….single payer becomes a reality. This is what is going to happen if the structure of Obamacare is maintained while trying to “reform” it around the edges.
BTW, I don’t dispute your political analysis…R’s probably are shooting themselves in the foot if they insist on de-funding Obamacare. But I don’t think we should fool ourselves into thinking that Obamacare can be funded and then “fixed”. It is rotten at the core, ie the fundamental philosophy that it embodies, and the only thing that can save us from it is the full-on elimination of it.
LikeLike
McWingnut, that’s going to fail. What’s going to happen instead is Republicans will lose the House.
LikeLike
As I wrote before, so what? Only fundamental change can rescue things. I cannot wait until I’m 70, it has to be done now. Slowing, slightly, the rate of growth is less than meaningless, it gives the illusion of progress. We’re monetizing the debt to the tune of 80 billion a month and have been for at least a year. Name a country that has survived that?
LikeLike
The individual exchanges are not about “destroy(ing) the concept of market based health insurance.”
If anything, they are the opposite. The approach of Republicans should be to build on that and shift as much of the population into them as possible so people are doing their own shopping and purchasing.
“The primary expertise that makes insurance companies useful is the evaluation and pricing of various individual risk factors amongst a certain population pool. A law which 1) mandates what risks must be covered and 2) mandates the price at which they must be covered effectively eliminates the need for the expertise that insurance companies exist to provide. “
If you are right about this, then every plan in the exchanges should be effectively the same and cost the same.
LikeLike
jnc:
The individual exchanges are not about “destroy(ing) the concept of market based health insurance.”
I said Obamacare, not individual exchanges, and there is a lot more to Obamacare than just individual exchanges. The veneer of a private, competitve market was required in order to get anything passed. Culturally the nation is not yet conditioned yet to accept a centrally controlled, single payer system. Getting the nation to that point is the long-game goal of Obamacare promoters, and what it is ultimately designed to achieve. And if it is already getting even just the tepid support of libertarians, I’d say it is well on its way to doing just that.
If you are right about this, then every plan in the exchanges should be effectively the same and cost the same.
Not immediately, because mandating what must be covered doesn’t limit what can be covered. And different companies may have different cost structures. But utlimately yes, I expect over time that any plan covering only the minimum amount allowed by law will tend to converge on the same price regardless of the carrier. And I also expect that over time regulations will be expanded to require greater and greater “minimum” coverage. Knowing how the regulatory state works, that much at least is pretty much a dead on certainty.
LikeLike
Republicans have forgone a historic opportunity here. Obama was and is so desperate for bipartisian support to validate his self image that any creativity on the part of Republicans from a policy standpoint could have lead to major concessions.
LikeLike
“I said Obamacare, not individual exchanges, and there is a lot more to Obamacare than just individual exchanges.”
Yes, and I said it would be easier to fix it than to get a wholesale repeal passed and signed by President Obama.
Which of us do you think is being more realistic?
Also, I think Obamacare locks in the current system for a generation or more and forestalls any possibility of single payer in the near future.
LikeLike
jnc:
Which of us do you think is being more realistic?
I never said repeal was realistic. In fact I think it will certainly not be repealed. As I said I do not disagree with your assessment of the politics of the situation. But Obamacare won’t be, and indeed cannot be, “fixed” because it is flawed at its very core. The idea behind it, and the structure of it, is designed to move the provision of health insurance away from a market based system, and towards a centrally, government controlled system.
My most “realistic” assessment is that we are doomed to have a government controlled, single payer system, and there is pretty much nothing that can stop it from happening now. It will take more or less time depending on the manuevering that takes place over the next decade, but it will happen, possibly in my lifetime, but certainly in that of my kids. That assessment is derived from the belief that only full on repeal can stop it from happening, and that full on repeal will not happen.
In my mind the choice at this point is not which strategy is a more “realistic” road to success. The battle is is already lost. The choice at this point is either a symbolic last stand, or join the other side while trying to stave off the worst of it for as long as possible in the hopes of some kind of miracle. The latter might be a more palatable option, but we shouldn’t pretend that it is a victory.
LikeLike
jnc:
In light of our discussion yesterday, you may be interested in this article today from the WSJ. I’m pretty sure it is not behind the firewall.
But self-insurance is now filtering down to businesses with 199 workers or fewer, as a hedge against ObamaCare’s federal mandates and the danger that costs on its small-business exchanges will soar. Some insurers are now selling popular products that allow groups as small as 25 to self-insure. In a 2012 study, the Urban Institute found ObamaCare’s incentives will cause as many as 60% of small firms to convert without regulatory changes.
So the White House, liberal pressure groups and state and federal regulators are trying to close what they call the self-insurance “loophole” before more escape. Their political and actuarial fear is that if enough businesses don’t join, the exchanges could fail because too few younger and healthier people will subsidize everybody else.
In a June alarm titled “The Threat of Self-Insured Plans Among Small Businesses,” the liberal Center for American Progress warns that “the result of this shift could cause an insurance premium death spiral.” Note how businesses that pay for their workers’ health care are suddenly a “threat.” Wasn’t coverage the point of ObamaCare?
LikeLike
The idea behind it, and the structure of it, is designed to move the provision of health insurance away from a market based system
Entirely a positive, since this clearly doesn’t work. Not that it has been “market based” in the past hundred years or so.
LikeLike