Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktMarkets are higher this morning on on real news. Bonds and MBS are rallying.
Initial Jobless Claims came in at 315k, a little higher than street expectations, but still a good number.
The President talked about ISIS last night. It was a declaration of war. Or something. Here are the takeaways.
The Fannie Mae National Housing Survey is out – average home price expectations continue to fall as consumers temper their bullishness on home price appreciation. People still have a dour view on the economy but it is improving slightly. That said, it looks like incomes took a bit of a hit in August.
Bill Gross of PIMCO has been raising cash in his Total Return Fund, selling Treasuries and developed sovereigns. Mortgages as a percent stayed flat at 20%.
Twitter is doing a new convertible bond which are convertible into stock or cash at Twitter’s election. This is rare – usually the choice is the bondholder’s not the issuer’s, at least on senior unsecured paper. This isn’t a convertible pref issue. It will be interesting to see the pricing on this – essentially the holder will be short a put on Twitter stock. If Twitter’s stock craters, Twitter gets to essentially sell stock at current levels. If Twitter stock continues to rally, they can either pay cash, or sell Twitter stock in the market at higher prices, redeem the bonds and pocket the difference between the sales price and the conversion price. The bigger point is that bond issues are getting more and more lopsided in favor of the borrower, and that is a classic market top signal. Investors are reaching for yield and taking risks they are not getting adequately compensated for. Paper like this can go no-bid in a hurry. IMO, the stock market is assuming that the Fed can start raising rates without anyone blowing up. Historically that hasn’t happened.
Foreclosure activity picked up in August, according to RealtyTrac. Activity picked up in the big judicial states like New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
This is truly mind blowing.
https://twitter.com/freddoso/status/510047827515293697
I thought the left were the “diplomats” and the right were reckless, booger-eating cowboys.
LikeLike
I’m more curious about the media incuriousness.
https://twitter.com/TPCarney/status/510051512761221120
A good story’s a good story, no?
LikeLike
I guess OTC birth control is bad.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/contraception-republicans-gardner-udall-mcfadden-maness
So, can we at least get forced abortions?
LikeLike
“So seriously, what did Sandy Berger steal in his socks? And why is this not a bigger scandal?”
What is this?
LikeLike
Berger stole some stuff from the National Archive during the 9/11 Commission investigation.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html
LikeLike
http://www.popehat.com/2014/09/06/u-c-berkeley-chancellor-nicholas-dirks-gets-free-speech-very-wrong/#more-22815
Gah!
LikeLike
I consider myself to have libertarian tendencies. I want more limited government. But I also think “limited” and “small” are two completely different ideas.
Sometimes I lose sight of that and argue for “small” [as in how come we blow money on the War on Drugs] when I might argue against the War on Drugs as a limited government violation of principle.
But there is no doubt we could spend a fortune interdicting foreign drug shipments, and we do. That part of the function is not amenable to limited government argument, only the intrusion of federal criminal law on single state crime is amenable to that.
So sometimes I am not clear. I think limited government allows for a lot of defense/security spending, including on research. I don’t have any problem with that spending. It allows for a space program. I do have a problem with the level of spending on it.
I realize that I often confuse the two goals. One is driven by a theory of federalism and the other is driven by an aversion to waste. I am only writing this now because I actually never thought about it before.
Do y’all see the distinction in this way, too?
LikeLike
Mark:
Do y’all see the distinction in this way, too?
I haven’t ever really thought of it that way, but it does make sense. My main goal is limited government federalism as laid out in the constitution.
LikeLike
absolutely, mark. limited in powers is what i’m after.
it’s akin the state’s rights, which i think is a misnomer. states don’t’ have rights, they have powers. some of which have been usurped by the feds.
QB and i briefly discussed this re: state police powers.
LikeLike
Dude has balls.
LikeLike