Morning Report: Rent and Mortgage Payments are due

Vital Statistics:

 

Last Change
S&P futures 2650 -48.1
Oil (WTI) 19.81 1.29
10 year government bond yield 0.61%
30 year fixed rate mortgage 3.43%

 

Stocks are lower this morning after disappointing comments out of Exxon, Apple and Amazon. Bonds and MBS are flat.

 

It is May 1. Mortgage and rent payments are due. I suspect we will see a deluge of missed payments. Meanwhile, about half of US states are looking to loosen restrictions.

 

Construction spending rose 0.9% in March, despite the COVID-19 concerns. The ISM Manufacturing Index fell, but not as much as feared.

 

Fannie Mae reported net income of $461 million in the first quarter compared to $4.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2019. Increased provisions for loan losses drove the decline. Fannie estimates that 7% of its book (or about a million loans) is in forbearance right now. Net worth fell by a billion to 13.6 billion. 1 million loans, $13.6 billion in equity.

 

According to Black Knight, 3.8 million mortgages are in forbearance. 1.7 million are Fannie / Freddie, 1.2 are GNMA and the rest are private label / other. UPB is $238 billion. Black Knight estimates that there will need to be $8 billion in P&I advances and another $1.7 billion in T&I advances.

 

Many large corporations are thinking of keeping work-from-home a permanent thing. It looks like productivity hasn’t suffered as much as employers have feared, and this could be a win-win for both employers and employees.

61 Responses

  1. Nancy Pelosi approaching Kavanaugh and Biden accusations differently. 😉

    Like

  2. USEFUL CPA WEBSITE = and this is a timely article:

    https://evergreensmallbusiness.com/losing-ppp-loan-forgiveness/

    Like

  3. watching the PL trip over itself on why Reade doesn’t qualify under the previous standard is a sight to behold.

    Like

    • Same’s true at Kos, though there is a small contingent that has not fallen in line. Those people are assumed to be Russians. Really.

      Like

      • #MeTooUnlessTheyreBlue

        right. the russians.

        Like

        • Hey! Hey!
          Hoo! Hoo!
          Me Too Unless He’s Blue!

          Like

        • the best (worst?) part of this is they totally torpedoed the movement for …. Joe Biden?

          Like

        • I promise you the next Republican accused will get the Kavenaugh treatment as if the Joe Biden thing never happened.

          Like

        • How much you wanna bet the deal is they agree to look the other way provided warren is the VP and biden agrees to step down as soon as he takes office (for health reasons).

          Like

        • hmm. biden’s people won’t want to give it up.

          Like

        • it’s truly been revealing about the media. Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that none of the networks will book Tara Reade for an interview, except for Fox.

          Like

        • I am floored that NYT printed that. Was the editor asleep?

          Liked by 1 person

        • But what I really love is Jacobin arguing that the Republicans have more integrity than the Democrats on #metoo because at least they tried to stop Trump when the Access Hollywood video came out but it was too late in the process.

          https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/04/donald-trump-joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations

          Liked by 1 person

        • But what I really love is Jacobin arguing that the Republicans have more integrity than the Democrats on #metoo because at least they tried to stop Trump when the Access Hollywood video came out but it was too late in the process.

          They are saying the GOP and a subset of the Republican party, yes?

          In any case, I don’t find that argument compelling. I don’t think either party has much integrity on the issue–individual politicians may, but as a whole both parties use such things as political weapons rather than searching for justice.

          That being said, the NYT has not been entirely on board with the WaPo/DailyKos position on Tara Reade. The Biden camp apparently cited that the NYT had looked into it and cleared him and the NYT was apparently quick to respond that that was inaccurate. They aren’t in a big hurry to carry his water for some reason.

          I’m guessing because (a) he’s a white man and (b) Trump is good for circulation? Where as a strong woman of color as the Democratic nominee would have overridden any concerns for circulation.

          Like

      • Let’s be clear about something:

        This allegation against Mr. Biden is not a matter of ambiguity, or partially faded memories, or possible inconsistencies in a story, or lack of witnesses, or misplaced paperwork, or he said/she said, or any of the other euphemisms.

        This is a lie. Defamation of character. A hit job.

        And it smacks of another Russian scheme — the same type of completely phony “email scandal” they waged against Hillary Clinton.

        Fool me once….. etc.

        Our country is under attack. And if you’re gullible enough to fall for another hit job like this and help Trump’s re-election, then damn your foolish soul.

        From the comments at PL. Indeed–the Russians.

        The people pushing this BS story are the two sides of the same counterfeit coin, the “Trump movement scum” and the “BernItDown movement scum,” the people who got together and gave us Trump in 2016, neither of whom can be believed if they tell you it’s Friday without independent confirmation.

        This woman has changed her story every time she told it. The law firm she went to turned her down because of that, and Ronan Farrow won’t touch her. That’s because she’s lying.

        Very convenient that a left-biased, anti-Trump media and reporters (whom, even if interested, wouldn’t touch this story with a ten foot pole because of career issues) not touching the issue is proof it’s all a lie.

        Which is not to say it isn’t, or it isn’t simply delusional. Brains are unreliable, memories are unreliable, people can and do make up events to explain feelings or emotional states that are fictional and yet the person believes really happened. In an absence of real evidence for or against, there’s nothing to contradict them. And most people feel their memories–especially the fictional ones–are the God’s honest truth and incontrovertible.

        But there’s not denying the difference between this and Kavanaugh (and the ongoing presumption of Kavanaugh’s guilt, with no more evidence than before).

        That being said, not sure Biden is handling it the best:

        Like

    • I’ll confess that when it comes to Reade’s allegation, I don’t know what to think. All the evidence is fragmentary and less than conclusive.

      So if I look back at everything Waldman wrote about Kavanaugh, will I find a sentence like that?

      For every piece of information that suggests she’s telling the truth and Biden did sexually assault her, there’s another that suggests the opposite.

      Like Kavanaugh? And no doubt he linked to articles skeptical of Christine Blasey-Ford’s claims, of which there were plenty, like he did here. I’m sure.

      You can point all that out to Trump’s supporters, but it won’t do you any good. Unlike liberals for whom sexual assault and gender equality are important issues, many conservatives are unencumbered by questions of principle, and they’re practiced at pretending to care about something for only as long as it gives them political advantage.

      Unlike Democrats and the left. Yah-huh.

      And right now, they couldn’t be happier. If you search “Tara Reade” at FoxNews.com, you come up with more than 2,500 results. It’s a game they’re practiced at playing.

      How many hits came up when you searched Christine-Blasey Ford at CNN back during all that? I mean, the constant assertion that: we’re so good but the other side doesn’t play fair (from either side) is exhausting. It’s a blood sport. Everybody takes groin shots and throws kidney punches.

      The fact that the charge against Biden is the same kind that has been leveled so many times (and far more persuasively) against Trump isn’t a bug; it’s a feature.

      I agree the charges against Trump are persuasive, as far as it goes. However, why are the charges against Biden not persuasive? Apparently 8 different women have come forward (likely mostly complaining about how touchy he is, which is documented on video) but I don’t get why the charges against Trump are somehow more persuasive that the charges against Biden.

      In either case, does it mean persuasive charges should prevent them from becoming president if elected? No. But still.

      Like

      • It is clear that #MeToo is nothing more than a partisan club that only one party is permitted to use.

        Liked by 1 person

        • We knew that would be the case. While #MeToo was impacting a lot of “liberal” or “progressive” entertainers–it was never going to impact prominent and important Democratic politicians or liberal judge appointees.

          Like

        • @Kevin: Al Franken

          I’ve been eviserated for saying that I think he did the right thing by stepping down, but nonetheless he is a victim of #MeToo.

          Like

        • I respect his decision—not there to make it for him, and he had his life and future to think about—but I still think he got railroaded, myself. Unless he did something way worse that nobody ever talked about.

          Not that he shouldn’t have apologized for some of his lecherous behavior but (again, unless there’s more) I think John Lasseter got railroaded for hugging too much and maybe being a little to handsy.

          All behaviors they should have been required to put a complete stop to, IMO, and reprimanded. May just be my age but that feels more like “mandatory sexual harassment training” rather than “we’re ending your career” or “screw those citizens who elected you, you wrote a skit where you kissed a woman and she didn’t want to” …

          Which is my position assuming there isn’t more actual evidence or indications of inappropriate behavior.

          When it comes to the Biden accusation—there’s a real problem that, if it’s true, Tara Reade couldn’t get any traction or addressing of her grievances at the time. And though there’s a compelling story there with verbal corroboration … at this point it was 27 years ago. There’s a lack of solid evidence. I’m not saying it’s a non-story or shouldn’t be considered, but with the exception of some hit pieces on Reade I feel like the mainstream press is covering this the way the should—carefully.

          Would they do that if it were a Republican? Probably not but still, it’s the better way to cover it is how they are handling this.

          I don’t feel accusations against Trump (in the category of harassment and assault) were handled as poorly as they might have been—and really can’t blame them for the Stormy Daniels story. Candidate has fling with porn start? Hard to resist.

          I just feel like there should be ways for harassed and assaulted folks to get justice that is just for accused and accuser—but also doesn’t require the accuser wait for decades until their attacker runs for president or gets nominated to SCOTUS.

          Eh, I just wish we could all be nice and respectful of each other. But that is difficult!

          Like

        • KW:

          but I still think he got railroaded, myself.

          I do too. But he got railroaded by a system/movement that he helped to create and endorsed. So fair enough, I think.

          Like

        • If that encouraged the more thoughtful and just application of standards, I’d consider it the price paid for improving the system and increasing justice I guess—ultimately I remain critical of the railroading while acknowledging that the folks who get railroaded played a role in creating the environment.

          I find the treatment of Tara Reade and Biden in this situation frustrating—WaPo and CNN and MSNBC and NYT are handling so far like I feel they should, almost like responsible journalists taking the job of responsible reporting seriously, IMO.

          So they can do it. They know how to do it. Will they do it next time someone conservative is nominated to SCOTUS? Probably not.

          And none of them will discuss how SCOTUS and the executive branch are now over-powered positions. Which you’d think would get some serious political coverage. But I ramble!

          /musings

          Like

      • I think I would put Waldman up in the Hall of Fame of Liberal Hacks

        Liked by 1 person

      • This too:

        Just like Paula Jones, etc.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I did not consider that but that does make a great deal of sense. Although I still think, to some extent, political expedience is dominant (and for many a kind of belief that you and your side are imbued with a moral righteousness–why so many Plum-line comments are in the “It’s all lies! Of course you believe women–when they aren’t lying!! Biden would never do this, this is the kind of thing Trump does!!” There is playing with timelines and discrepancies (all valid things to do with 30 year old accusations) but the ultimate vibe I’m getting is it can’t be true because Biden is a good guy, and I am a good guy, and I believe in good guys, so it’s a lie from the bad guys.

          If he were a Baptist preacher, it would all be blamed on the Devil.

          Like

  4. It is fascinating how re-open versus stay at home has fallen straight down partisan lines.

    i think that is an unforced error on the left. eat cake versus eat broccoli…

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think it could really hurt some of these folks at the local level. Especially the ones where police are arresting people for being at the park. Next election they are likely in trouble.

      Like

      • I love the “Karen is the new N-word” crowd.

        Nothing more Karen than that statement

        Like

        • I’ve heard that that is serious and also that it is trolling.

          The thing is: I could believe either thing. Someone may assert that it’s trolling, trying to make the left look silly, and maybe that’s true. But it’s also believable as an actual position someone at an extreme edge of political belief and without a contextualized education might hold.

          I believe we have a non-trivial number of people for whom there is no difference between being serious and trolling.

          Like

        • I believe it is serious. No demo has had its ass kissed harder and longer than older women. They can’t fathom that they could be out of line

          Like

        • It may he serious. I honestly can’t tell.

          But if I found out it was serious believed by many older woman, I would 100% believe it. I’m sure it is. I’m not sure the first Tweet was serious–but it sounded like it was meant seriously.

          But that it’s so difficult for people to immediately tell whether something is serious or trolling (and I’m not the only person unclear) says something about the state of political victimhood and identity politics in this country.

          Like

        • I recall Gillibrand going after and TANKING Franken’s career on much less. Maybe Ds have learned not to eat their own?

          And as for the MeToo “movement” it is just a hashtag, right?

          What most disturbs me about the Reade allegation [which I would tend toward believing] was the power positions of the two people. It was what concerned me most about Lewinsky, as well. Employment law in this regard quite pointedly exempted Congress and the Executive Branch. Ya gotta ponder that one.

          Like

        • WaPo seems to want to open his University of Delaware Senatorial docs. My thought is that they belong to UD. Doesn’t that seem correct to you? My source is this:

          https://library.udel.edu/special/joseph-r-biden-jr-senatorial-papers/

          Like

        • Mark:

          I recall Gillibrand going after and TANKING Franken’s career on much less. Maybe Ds have learned not to eat their own?

          I don’t think Dems have ever eaten their own. The Franken episode was an exception, due primarily to the timing, ie it coming right smack dab in the middle of the outbreak of the whole #metoo movement. Beyond that instance, when have Dems ever allowed one of their own high-profile politicians to get taken down over a sex scandal?

          Like


        • I recall Gillibrand going after and TANKING Franken’s career on much less. Maybe Ds have learned not to eat their own?

          I still find the turning on Franken was odd. Perhaps they felt he was an easy sacrifice, that his seat was safely Democrat, that he’d never be a presidential candidate? Or maybe the momentum of #MeToo was just so huge at the time that everybody wanted to be on the right side of that train? My feeling at the time was Franken got railroaded.

          What most disturbs me about the Reade allegation [which I would tend toward believing] was the power positions of the two people.

          I think that’s at the root of why Lewinski (and, if guilt, other alleged bad things Bill Clinton did) happened, and why, if this happened, why it happened. Because they thought they could get away with it, that it was just par for the course, that it was a perfectly legitimate thing to do with very low-risk because of their power position.

          I’ve read the “why I believe” and “why I don’t believe” stuff. For me, the 30 year gap is a problem. If it’s all true, I’m sorry for what happened to her but my feeling is unless it involves murder there needs to be a cut off for what can legitimately be used to attack presidential candidates or SCOTUS nominees without physical or documentary evidence. Not so much as a legal matter but just as to what the press should be treating as breaking news.

          I know that’s not going to happen, but I don’t find it a legitimate vector of attack. Though now that it’s happening, how Joe responds in the present is open to attack.

          Employment law in this regard quite pointedly exempted Congress and the Executive Branch. Ya gotta ponder that one.

          That seems just wrong, to me. And that’s the answer to these kind of Biden situations, and to a lesser extent Franken situations. There should be a formal and fair way to register complaints, guidelines for presenting evidence, and independent investigation into the complaints–and then that’s the end of it. That way the victim gets some kind of resolution and response at the time (and if someone claims they didn’t, records could be pulled) and it won’t come up when it seems politically expedient to re-litigate.

          Like

        • KW:

          I know that’s not going to happen, but I don’t find it a legitimate vector of attack.

          It is definitely a legitimate vector of attack against Dems, precisely because they have used it so often against others.

          A a purely objective matter, I don’t think that we should pay any attention to only recently articulated allegations about a 30 year old incident. I think that if you didn’t make a fuss about it when it actually happened, you pretty much forfeit your right turn it into a fuss now. But justice does not exist in a void. The minute that Biden, and the Dems more broadly, jumped on the Kavanaugh smear train, they altered what can be considered just treatment of themselves. I frankly don’t care whether or not her allegations are true. There is no more just treatment of someone than to apply their own standard against them. Biden said we should presume that Blasey-Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh were true. OK, then, we should presume that the accusations against him are true as well. I hope he gets destroyed by this, whether it is true or not. That would be a just outcome.

          Like

        • There is no more just treatment of someone than to apply their own standard against them.

          I hope that it happens but I have my doubts.

          Like

        • McWing:

          I hope that it happens but I have my doubts.

          Yeah, I’m skeptical too. But it is getting more traction than I thought it would.

          Like

        • I am with Kevin in that I think the events or something like them happened 25+ years ago but don’t count as newsworthy any more. I thought that about Kavanaugh and only wanted him to be questioned about one freaking dissent he wrote that was completely different in tone than all his other opinions. That never happened of course.

          I did think it was OK to pursue Kavanaugh’s drinking habits once he said he used to black out, because drinking habits don’t change without some hard choices. I think he was probably vetted on that by the FBI and I think other Circuit Judges would have not backed him if it had affected his work, so it probably was something he had dealt with. In fact, his low point IMO in the hearing was his attitude toward the only person who questioned his then current relationship to alcohol.

          I don’t care what Rs or Ds want to do in these situations because politics is a dirty game but governance should not be, and journalism should try to focus on governance, not ancient scandal. So again, I am with Kev. Sxott, you may recall that JB was the chair of the Judiciary Committee during the Thomas hearings and that he was pretty merciless on Hill. Just a footnote to ancient history.

          And in the employment context, Congress should cover itself and the Executive branch with the same sexual harassment rules as it has ordained for private employers.
          Then there would be NO EXCUSE to bring up shit 25 years later that you failed to mention in a grevance at the time. H/T to Kev, again.

          Like

        • once he said he used to black out

          I don’t recall him ever admitting to this. I thought he was asked if he’d ever blacked out from drinking and he said no.

          Like

        • McWing:

          I don’t recall him ever admitting to this. I thought he was asked if he’d ever blacked out from drinking and he said no.

          You are correct.

          Like

        • I also don’t recall this, but don’t trust me memory and mostly absorbed hilights rather than the whole sordid spectacle. That being said I don’t know how SCOTUS noms got handled before Bork, but since I don’t think any of them have been anything like a proper screening process for the job. Some have been less hostile and more collegial than others but still …

          Like

        • What he said to

          Like

        • Mark:

          I am with Kevin in that I think the events or something like them happened 25+ years ago but don’t count as newsworthy any more.

          I guess maybe I wasn’t that clear, but objectively speaking, I totally agree. But for someone who does think they are relevant for other people, and has used such past events in an attempt to destroy other people, then I think that justice demands that the same standard be applied to them. Even if it is not a standard I agree with as an objective matter.

          I did think it was OK to pursue Kavanaugh’s drinking habits once he said he used to black out, because drinking habits don’t change without some hard choices.

          My drinking habits are not even remotely like they were when I was in high school or college, and I haven’t made any hard choices in that regard at all.

          I don’t care what Rs or Ds want to do in these situations because politics is a dirty game but governance should not be, and journalism should try to focus on governance, not ancient scandal.

          In a world in which the Kavanaugh events took place – in other words, the world which we now inhabit in 2020 – is it really your belief that journalists should ignore the Reade allegations, despite having done precisely the opposite with Kavanaugh?

          Sxott, you may recall that JB was the chair of the Judiciary Committee during the Thomas hearings and that he was pretty merciless on Hill.

          I actually don’t recall Biden ever saying a negative word about or to Anita Hill. From my recollection, Hill’s and the left’s criticism of Biden over the Thomas episode was simply that he 1) didn’t use his position as chair to shield Hill from Republican challenges and 2) he didn’t call other witnesses that supposedly had similar allegations. How exactly was he merciless with her?

          Like

        • Ideally the media would cover Reade’s allegation with the caution and thoughtfulness that they are—and do the same when something like this happens to a Republican.

          And public critiques wouldn’t be demanding more airing of the Biden allegations but rather focused entirely on the double-standard and why it’s a bad idea—which would drag the Reade allegations up but the attention should be focused on folks like CNN who devoted hours of programming to outrageous allegations without corroboration or evidence when it came to Cavanaugh. What kind of news organization runs with accusations of gang rape with no evidence or corroboration?

          Like

        • You’re probably right about the blackout denial the questions were asked because the committee had statements from three of his alleged Yale male drinking buddies that he did black out and I took his turning the question back on Klobuchar as initally a tacit admission by misdirection.

          Biden set up the Hill hearing consciously in favor of Thomas – he asked if Thomas wanted to go first, last, or both. Thomas said “both” and Biden obliged. Biden refused the offer of testimony from three other women who claimed Thomas harassed them [as you recalled] and he closed off any testimony about Thomas from other than the work environment [that one I thought was OK].

          When the convener of the hearing sets it up the way Biden did that was brutal and merciless. But he was on the record as demanding that the Committee stick to Thomas’ qualifications, not character attacks on Thomas, and the Metzenbaum-Kennedy push to get Hill’s testimony was going to be torpedoed by him at the same time he was ostensibly permitting a “hearing”.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Biden set up the Hill hearing consciously in favor of Thomas…

          Even if that were true, I don’t see how that qualifies as Biden being “merciless” to Hill, but ok.

          …and the Metzenbaum-Kennedy push to get Hill’s testimony was going to be torpedoed by him at the same time he was ostensibly permitting a “hearing”.

          That is certainly an interesting interpretation of events, that Hill’s testimony was “torpedoed” by Biden. I recall it being quite an effective media sensation, right up until Thomas himself testified with righteous anger over the “high-tech lynching” that was taking place.

          Like

  5. Jonah Goldberg on the Biden thing:

    https://gfile.thedispatch.com/p/the-problem-with-take-women-seriously?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo4NTc0NzI2LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0MjMwNDQsIl8iOiJGc2pkdSIsImlhdCI6MTU4ODM4MDc5MiwiZXhwIjoxNTg4Mzg0MzkyLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTc4MTkiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.r4M_GWMyDfEgDhOrtNzrio0LwaSdz_FqXZzNgBoot4Y

    I love Jonah. So what he’s a NeverTrumper? 🙂

    This is the core danger of victimology: We celebrate victims in our culture, and what you celebrate is what you get more of. Jussie Smollett wasn’t being irrational when he faked a hate crime against him. He wanted to be a racial martyr. The accuser in the UVA rape case was responding to cultural incentives—and if Rolling Stone had its way, she would have succeeded. And this stuff often works. Al Sharpton is an elder statesman of the Democratic Party, and he owes it all to Tawana Brawley’s lie.

    Like

  6. Motherfucker can troll.

    Like

  7. Ouch.

    Obama let his daughter intern for Harvey Weinstein https://twitter.com/stefcutter/status/1256582333693599744

    Like

    • I’m general, I don’t find appeals to authority (Obama wouldn’t have put up with anything like this) compelling generally, and specifically the accusation had nothing to do with Biden’s behavior during the Obama presidency and clearly he put up with some odd behavior because Biden has always been overly-touchy—that’s on many pictures and videos. Can’t imagine Obama wouldn’t have preferred he stop grabbing people. Also “are we doing this again” and “like is the other thing where nothing was there” are also not compelling arguments to me, and generally I can’t even agree with the premise.

      Like

  8. Legit funny.

    She’d be hawter if she had bigger bewbs tho.

    Like

    • “The horror of the Bush years” …

      Pretty sweet life if a guy you didn’t like in the Whitehouse starting a stupid war for no good reason qualifies as years of “horror”. Imagine living in a leper colony in the 1600s. Perspective.

      Like

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

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: