SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (116225)8/8/2001 11:13:38 PM
From: Lucretius  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 436258
 
you go long this piggie market or somethin? -g-



To: Ilaine who wrote (116225)8/9/2001 1:27:17 AM
From: Skeeter Bug  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
cb, equity can disappear a lot faster than equity. the dude in this article went from $35 million to -$2 million in a year. IF the markets and real estate values stay where they are then we avert disaster.

however, the good bet is they don't. no bubble has ended this well - and this was the grand daddy of them all.

businessweek.com

if they take away the amt then the companies should not be able to deduct the value of the shares until the employee sells them... this is a terrible situation for folks that played the game and lost.



To: Ilaine who wrote (116225)8/9/2001 5:25:55 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 436258
 
the thing about those net worth numbers is that turning an aggregate figure into a per capita one as you've done hides the ugly imbalance that exists. some people have much more net worth, others have negative net worth. 500K net worth guy and -200K negative net worth guy average out to 150K net worth per capita. but 500K guy is no help to -200K guy (or the creditors) when the latter stops installment payments. i think that's important to look at because it is weakness on the margins that results in massive failures, as hinted at by the WSJ article on subprime lenders posted here a few posts back (1BB writedown by Amex).

also, i wonder if your debt numbers include leases on vehicles, which are a big drain on installment cash flows but often don't show up in debt numbers.

from that article:

That subprime has been deteriorating is clear. In May, the latest month for which data are available, the percentage of subprime mortgages nationwide that were seriously delinquent rose to 6.37% from 5.55% at the end of last year, according to Mortgage Information Corp., a San Francisco research and data firm that tracks the majority of all subprime mortgages. That compares with a 4.64% delinquency rate at the end of 1999. A mortgage is defined as seriously delinquent when the borrower is three or more payments late.

The rising delinquency rate could be an early sign that broader consumer-credit problems are just around the corner, much as rising junk-bond defaults two years ago proved a harbinger of deep problems in corporate lending. Some analysts and regulators already see signs of wider trouble as layoffs mount up and the nation's consumers, already dripping in debt, start to feel the pinch of a slowing economy.

Indeed, "prime" mortgages issued in 2000 have a higher serious delinquency rate for this point in their life cycles than the mortgage loans made in any other year since at least 1993, according to Mortgage Information. The serious delinquency rate for last year's prime mortgages -- the ones for customers with good credit histories -- stood at 0.16% at the end of last year, up from 0.07% for loans made in 1999.



To: Ilaine who wrote (116225)8/9/2001 1:44:27 PM
From: John Graybill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258
 
The eye-opener IMO is that 2000 was the only year that the number decreased.

The heart-stopper is that that is *worse* than the change during the recession years 1990 to 1991. It increased that year.