Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | |
| S&P futures | 3083 | 7.25 |
| Oil (WTI) | 56.97 | 0.64 |
| 10 year government bond yield | 1.84% | |
| 30 year fixed rate mortgage | 3.92% |
Stocks are higher this morning after Chinese President Xi Jinping committed to lowering tariffs and institutional transaction costs. Bonds and MBS are down.
The markets expect to see some sort of phase 1 trade deal with China in the coming weeks. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that China and the US are considering rolling back some tariffs. Separately, the Chinese central bank lowered rates to deal with a liquidity crunch.
There isn’t much data this week (as is typical after the jobs report) however we do have a lot of Fed-Speak so, we could see some movement in the bond markets as we adjust to the pause. For those keeping score at home, the December Fed Funds futures are signalling only a 5% chance of another rate cut this year. A month ago, they were handicapping a 44% chance of another cut.
Home prices rose 3.5% YOY according to CoreLogic. By their models, 36% of the top 100 MSAs are overvalued (including the NYC area), while 23% were undervalued and 41% were fairly valued. Their model compares housing values to disposable incomes to come up with a valuation score. They are forecasting home price appreciation to accelerate to 5.6% over next year. Note that Realtor.com said that listing prices rose 4.3% in October to a high of 312,000.
About 0.6% of all originations went DQ within 6 months, according to Black Knight Financial Services. While this is much lower than the pre-bubble years, it has been steadily increasing since the housing market bottomed. The concentration is primarily in first time homebuyers. Foreclosures remain under control, at levels last seen in 2005.
Filed under: Economy, Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
He’s about to get excommunicated:
LikeLike
Good point. Great look for Disney,eh?
LikeLike
The reporter’s take is a bit more nuanced than the tweet. Same factoids, but defends the networks standards for corroboration.
“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations,” reads the statement. “My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. I was referencing her allegations — not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed that it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
LikeLike
they had no qualms about evidence with kavanaugh.
if epstein was associated with trump, they would have run it non-stop 24/7.
LikeLike
I think that is likely.
LikeLike
Probably, but again, I wouldn’t guarantee it. If here were an elected politician then sure, but I think more than politics played into the decision to protect Epstein. There’s no way the story would be worth the financial cost to the network if they ran it, and the people greenlighting the story would have likely gotten fired on demoted or in some other way called to account.
The gatekeepers of our democracy like their jobs and ad revenue and don’t want to get sued by billionaires.
LikeLike
It was 2016, during the election so they were protecting Hillary.
LikeLike
It was 2016, during the election so they were protecting Hillary.
I think that could have been it, or figured into the calculus. But (a) that can be done by ignoring the Clinton association. She even talks about “the palace” threatening them about the Prince Andrew stuff, so I don’t think it was as much protecting Clinton as themselves.
The media may be rabid partisans, but I think more basic instinct of self-preservation and self-aggrandizement play a role in these kinds of decisions.
In this case, this story could have had them attacked by Epstein, the Clintons, and Buckingham Palace. I can see why they might have lost their thirst for hard-hitting news stories about billionaires who have their own pedophilia paradise.
LikeLike
KW:
The media may be rabid partisans, but I think more basic instinct of self-preservation and self-aggrandizement play a role in these kinds of decisions.
I agree that self-interest is always the primary motivator for the media, but I think equally true is that politics is always factored into its self-interest.
LikeLike
we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations
I think the issue is: what are ABC’s supposed editorial standards? Because they seem to be extremely fungible.
in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. I was referencing her allegations — not what ABC News had verified through our reporting.
And what did ABC verify through their reporting? Did they try to verify anything? What was the process of applying these standards of evidence? When complaining, she referenced quite a lot of documentation. How did that compare to the documentation on, say, Kavanaugh?
She said originally–and doesn’t really seem to contradict–that ABC simply didn’t have any interest in the story. So I’m expecting there was no real effort to corroborate, and any evidence she presented–as she claimed, originally, to have quite a lot–would be deemed to not meet “standards”, pretty no much matter what she came up with.
Which ultimately makes sense to me. Dude was super-wealthy and super-connected and not a public figure in the manner of an elected politician. There is no way the financial cost of that story would be justified by the ad revenues–and being super-connected means that people would get fired. At the end of it all, justice might have been served, but that’s a lot of future-maybes for producers to want to lose their job over.
while I was disappointed that it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards.
Which are what, exactly? Again, I’m not seeing any kind of consistently applied standards.
In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.
And they don’t really have to. What they said was: we’re not running the story. And you can keep wasting your time on a story we’re never going to run, or you can do something else that actually gets you on TV.
LikeLike
Mark:
Same factoids, but defends the networks standards for corroboration.
I think she is lying through her teeth. If you watch the video clip of her expressing her “frustration”, she explicitly says that they had “pictures” and “other women backing it up”. She was clearly not expressing frustration over an inability to corroborate the story. She was expressing frustration over the editors simply not caring. She’s also lying about her references to Prince Andrew. She was not simply talking about what Virginia Roberts said. She again explicitly says that “the Palace” found out that she had the story and then “threatened us a million different ways”, producing fear that ABC “wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will”, and that this fear “quashed the story”.
If you haven’t watched the video, you should.
LikeLike
I did not know there was a video. OK.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The left isn’t interested in the story.
https://www.dailykos.com/search?text=Jeffrey+Epstein&time_begin=10%2F30%2F2019&time_end=now&text_type=any&text_expand=contains&search_type=search_stories&time_type=time_published&submit=search
LikeLike
I certainly was confused about who had the story and who suppressed it. I was only aware of Farrow and NBC.
Farrow said NBC stuffed him several times. I remember that, and I think Farrow said it was because Harvey Wallbanger had these confidentiality agreements with the women and NBC feared tortious interference claims, which struck me as bogus.
I did not know other journos were in hot pursuit. And I confuse him with Epstein.
It’s difficult to keep up with all of them.
LikeLike
what a shock
LikeLike