Vital Statistics:
| Last | Change | |
| S&P Futures | 2374.8 | 27.3 |
| Eurostoxx Index | 386.0 | 7.9 |
| Oil (WTI) | 49.9 | 0.3 |
| US dollar index | 89.5 | |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.29% | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 102.78 | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 104 | |
| 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 3.98 |
Stocks are higher this morning after the French election had no surprises. Bonds and MBS are down on the risk-on trade.
We will have a lot of real estate related economic releases this week, however we don’t have much in the way of market moving data until Friday when we get the first look at Q1 GDP. We have Fed-Speak today and Friday.
The French election will pit a centrist against a right wing candidate. The far left candidate did not make it to the next round. Given this is just a first round election, the market’s sugar high probably won’t last all that long.
After the French election, the next big event is the the potential government shutdown on Friday. The sticking point is that Trump wants funding for the border wall, which Democrats are calling a non-starter. If Trump and the Democrats can’t get a deal (or Trump can’t get Republicans to help him out), we will get a partial government shutdown starting Saturday. This will be the big event this week, although markets are probably used to this sort of drama.
It is humorous to pick up the way the potential shutdown is spun in the media. When obama had to deal with shutdowns, it was the irresponsible Republicans who controlled Congress who were the villains. Now that Democrats won’t vote for a CR, the villain is now Trump. Plus ca change…
Note that the last time we had a shutdown, people weren’t able to get 4506-T’s out of the IRS during the shutdown. LO’s should plan accordingly to keep closings on track.
Economic activity took a step back in March, according to the Chicago Fed National Activity Index. Employment related indicators drove the decrease. Not sure how much of that is coming from retailers, who have been struggling as of late. This is a meta-index of leading and lagging indicators, however it certainly shows that the hard data (actual spending / employment / production numbers) is not catching up to the soft data (sentiment surveys).
Tight inventory has home prices on a tear, with the Black Knight Home Price Index up 0.8% MOM and 5.7% YOY. The index has now passed its bubble peak and is making new highs. The FHFA index and the CoreLogic indices have hit new highs as well, leaving only the Case-Shiller index still underwater. Mortgage originators are issuing tons of pre-qual letters, but the offers are not forthcoming since the market is so competitive. Buyers are now making offers without contingencies in order to get the home they want. The hottest market? Seattle, where prices rose 2.7% on a month-over-month basis. This is hard for the first time homebuyer who often needs some help paying closing costs. VA loans allow for seller’s concessions (which don’t cost the seller any money), which means you can get up to a 103% LTV loan.
Chris Whalen has a good piece on what the origination business will look like for 2017. Punch line: lower volumes, increasing purchase activity, and a widening of the credit box. He also speculates that CFPB Chairman Richard Cordroy’s response to Trump staffer Gary Cohn’s request to resign was to launch a new assault on Ocwen. There are rumors that JP Morgan might get back into the FHA lending business, and Wells has cut pricing on FHA loans as well. In terms of home price appreciation, housing affordability is stretched, but low inventories will proved price support.
Homebuilder DR Horton reported strong Q2 earnings as revenues and income rose 17%. New orders were up 14% in units and 17% in value. They took up guidance as well.
Filed under: Economy, Morning Report |
The NY Times rewriting history:
There hadn’t been a court ruling that the Bush program was unconstitutional (and there wasn’t likely to be given that it was classified and secret). Instead, Comey and the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel had determined that there was no legal basis for the program so they were unwilling to sign off on an executive order to that effect.
LikeLike
jnc:
Instead, Comey and the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel had determined that there was no legal basis for the program so they were unwilling to sign off on an executive order to that effect.
Funny, I saw an interesting documentary this weekend about Dick Cheney (on Amazon Prime) in which they went into this very event in great detail. Your description is in line with that of the film.
According to the film, Comey had already convinced Ashcroft not to reauthorize the program without certain changes even before Ashcroft went into the hospital, and was actually acting on behalf of Ashcroft in refusing to sign off on the reauthorization while Ashcroft was hospitalized. The night before the existing authorization was set to expire, Bush, who had been unaware of Comey’s objections until the day before (a fact which the film blamed on Cheney) called Comey into a private meeting to ask him why he was scuppering the program at the last minute. Comey told him it wasn’t a last minute thing, that he had presented his opinion 3 months before along with the changes needed to get Justice’s sign-off. Bush was surprised that he hadn’t been informed, and agreed to make the changes.
According to the movie, this was the beginning of the decline in the relationship between Bush and Cheney.
LikeLike
All of that is correct, as far as I know. It’s certainly what Comey publicly testified to before Congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501043.html
Interesting that the testimony was ten years ago next month.
LikeLike
If this isn’t simply brilliant satire, it is astounding. It is “Free to Be You and Me” for your nether regions..
LikeLike
And that tells you all you need to know about Bill Nye.
LikeLike
Now we know, female genital mutilation is more important than feminism at the NYT.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/nyt-tiptoes-around-feelings-of-people-who-mutilate-little-girls/
LikeLike
Worth noting:
“Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway
By dropping charges against major arms targets, the administration infuriated Justice Department officials — and undermined its own counterproliferation task forces.
By Josh Meyer
04/24/17 05:00 AM EDT”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
LikeLike
This article is funny.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-russia-probe-flounders-amid-partisan-bickering-130323166.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Slate is actually spot on:
LikeLike
“engage in public displays of self-reckoned intelligence”
That is spot-on. And stuff like this is what makes Slate better than Vox.
LikeLike
Fuckin’ A it means you’re a bigot!
http://everydayfeminism.com/2017/04/cissexist-say-never-date-trans/
Gotta admit, a dude telling a broad how to be a lesbian is hawt!
LikeLike
My position is you should never date, period. What does that make me?
LikeLike
Whitey ain’t shy, just a bigot.
Now, start banging trannies unless you want to add transphobe to the list!
LikeLike
Why do I want to make eye contact with strangers? Unless they are extremely attractive women, and I want to be “yeah, I’m old, I don’t care about your hotness”.
LikeLike
JNC, if you have read anything about this, do you know what the mechanics are of the Admin not having filled 80% of its appointed jobs?
Is this entirely by design? Is it because DJT ignores paperwork or fails to delegate? Is it because the vetting process is unusually stiff? Is it because no one wants a job there?
LikeLike
Answering my question to JNC, the WaPo offers this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slow-pace-of-trump-nominations-leaves-cabinet-agencies-stuck-in-staffing-limbo/2017/04/25/0a150aba-252c-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_vacancy-907p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.46fe9bce2cf8
LikeLike
Mark:
I’m curious what you think about the seeming implication of the SCOTUS ruling you highlighted yesterday. If property taken upon a conviction can be declared to have been taken in violation of the due process clause upon a later reversal or vacation of that conviction, wouldn’t it necessarily also be true that liberty taken upon the same conviction must also have been taken in violation of the due process clause? And wouldn’t that imply that the state would owe the newly un-convicted person for time spent in jail, just as it owes him the property that it took?
LikeLike
That’s interesting to think about, Scott, and I will.
Some states permit restitution by statute and some grant standing for litigation but I would want to get a feel for the current state of the law and the arguments that are being made, particularly about “due process”. Whatever the current state is, I think these cases force one to confront the limits of procedural due process and whether there will be a continuing theory of “substantive” due process.
Procedural due process does not guarantee a correct result, only a fair and impartial hearing after due notice of the charges, with opportunity to testify and confront witnesses, etc. So one way to look at it might be to look at why the conviction was reversed. Was it because the underlying procedure was unfair and denied procedural due process? It would be easy for me to justify damages for loss of liberty if exculpatory evidence was suppressed by the prosecution or the case was a frame-up by the police. The state should not be able to avoid restitution for its own actual wrongdoing.
But if the conviction were overturned because the legislature retroactively decriminalized marijuana I would have no sympathy for the restitution idea. Even if the courts decided that “substantive due process” demanded the release of all perps of victimless crimes I would not accept that as requiring damages be paid for loss of liberty.
In any case, I will want to read more and I don’t have a ready one-size fits all answer.
LikeLike
MarK:
I appreciate the thoughts.
Procedural due process does not guarantee a correct result
Exactly my thinking. Which suggests to me that maybe Thomas’s opinion is not as crazy as it intuitively feels on the surface.
So one way to look at it might be to look at why the conviction was reversed.
Agreed, and presumably that is what Colorado’s Exoneration Act was designed to do, ie look at the particulars of each case and the reasons for reversing/vacating the conviction, before making a decision on whether to return of fines/fees paid upon original conviction.
Even if the courts decided that “substantive due process” demanded the release of all perps of victimless crimes I would not accept that as requiring damages be paid for loss of liberty.
And, by implication then, I assume it would also not require the re-payment of fines or fees paid as a result of the original conviction.
I”m slowly beginning to convince myself that Thomas may have the better argument.
LikeLike
I’ll think about it some more.
It seems to me the majority is saying that if liberty is to be restored so property should be as well.
In other words, the property taking cannot become irrevocable.
You chew on it, too.
LikeLike