Morning Report: Dueling bills to end the shutdown

Posted on January 24, 2019 by Brent Nyitray

Vital Statistics:

 

Last Change
S&P futures 2643.25 4.75
Eurostoxx index 356.16 1.08
Oil (WTI) 52.37 -0.25
10 year government bond yield 2.73%
30 year fixed rate mortgage 4.62%

 

Stocks are higher this morning on no real news. Bonds and MBS are flat.

 

Dueling bills to end the shutdown will be voted on in the Senate today, with neither one having much chance of passing. The point of holding these votes is to hopefully create some avenue for compromise. Separately, Trump will postpone the State of the Union address until after the shutdown is over.

 

The government estimates that first quarter GDP could be flat if the government shutdown lasts for the whole quarter. There is always some seasonal noise that depresses Q1 GDP relative to the rest of the year, and the added effects of the shutdown would exacerbate that.

 

House prices rose 0.4% in November, according to the FHFA House Price Index. On a YOY basis, they were up 5.8%. Take a look at the chart below – you can see how much the hot markets out West have cooled down.  That said, the FHFA index is holding up better than indices like CoreLogic or Case-Shiller. This is because the index focuses on conforming loans only, which makes it a starter-home heavy index and that is where the demand is.

 

fhfa regional

 

There has been another major leak of financial data, this time affecting mortgage and loan data from Citi, HSBC, Wells, Capital One, and HUD. The data contained names, social security numbers, and bank account numbers. Much of the data was quite old, dating back to the bubble years.

 

 

Filed under: Economy, Morning Report |

« »

13 Responses

  1. markinaustin, on January 24, 2019 at 7:45 am said:

    Off topic, I was once [and until recently] a fan of Lindsey Graham. Would likely have supported him for POTUS in 2016.

    https://tinyurl.com/y7bjprgo

    I agree, and am saddened to have been so w-w-wrong.

    Like

    Reply
    • Let the mutherfuker burn!, on January 24, 2019 at 8:45 am said:

      Do you, or did you ever think his motivation was something other than a craving for power and attention? If so, why?

      Like

      Reply
      • markinaustin, on January 24, 2019 at 11:42 am said:

        I respected his conduct in office and his continuing JAG service.

        I generally assume ambition for “power” or glory is there for people who run for office, but many think they are doing a public service along the way and some act like it through their conduct, whether I agree with them or not.
        Also, some of them have a sense of their limits that is not too far from whatever is the current reality or the actual law. Then there are some like the 4 ex governors of IL serving time. But back from digressing:

        it is his conduct that has changed.

        Like

        Reply
        • Brent Nyitray, on January 24, 2019 at 11:44 am said:

          i don’t know.

          i think people go into politics because they either are on the take or are control freak busybodies who want to force people to live the way they think they should live.

          Like

        • jnc4p, on January 24, 2019 at 1:00 pm said:

          I think that when faced with sticking with his prior beliefs and accommodating Trump to stay in office, he chose the latter.

          That’s what explains his 180.

          Like

  3. jnc4p, on January 24, 2019 at 3:10 pm said:

    “Thursday’s vote was the result of an agreement reached by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Shumer earlier this week. The intent was to give each side’s idea an opportunity for a vote.

    The first of these plans was one proposed by Trump, which included demands for $5.7 billion for the border wall, along with three-year extensions of protections for DACA recipients and TPS holders. The second was a clean short-term spending bill proposed by Democrats, which did not contain wall money and would open the government through February 8. Neither was able to reach the 60-vote threshold they needed to gain Senate approval.”

    https://www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18195881/senate-shutdown-votes

    So basically “give each side’s idea an opportunity for a vote” still allows for a filibuster? Presumably if it was 60 votes, it was about cutting off debate, not actually passing or not passing the bill.

    Like

    Reply

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.