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.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: russwinter who wrote (5472)1/19/2004 10:52:27 AM
From: Ramsey Su  Respond to of 110194
 
hussmanfunds.com

this is pretty interesting article.



To: russwinter who wrote (5472)1/19/2004 10:57:18 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
i agree with you that tax benefit is overblown. in any case, i have read that the 2004 cut is skewed toward savings-prone higher-income groups compared to the 2003 cuts.

the consumer doesn't eat and use fuel (not correct as at least 18% of spending is for these items

obviously they eat and use fuel and these are real inflationary expenses in and of themselves. but there are several reasons to consider a core CPI, none of which relies on the idea of foodless, energyless consumers:

1. the volatility in these prices in both directions is much greater than the rest of the prices in the series. relying on short-term food and energy price trends, one would be led to believe that the world is highly inflationary one week and deflationary the next. the core indices provide clearer trends.

2. food and energy price trends, if persistent, should eventually be reflected in overall prices. thus there will be a delayed impact on the core indices.

3. because food and energy are necessities, rises in their prices are a consumption tax which reduces demand in nondiscretionary areas. secular food/energy price increases, in an environment where the broader market lacks pricing power, are deflationary.

to take an extreme example, if oil goes to $100 (a price it has already achieved in constant dollars, during the oil shocks of the 1970s), demand for transportation (55% of oil consumption) will be reduced. this reduces the need for vehicles and all their material inputs, which is deflationary on extracted commodities.

at the same time, industrial agriculture-based food will become more expensive due to higher-cost fossil-fuel inputs (and higher NG making fertilizer more expensive). eventually, there is a price for petroleum at which the entire industrial agribusiness is no longer sustainable. in that event, communities must fall back to localized production.

this reduces food availability, and will result in loss of life. as life is lost, the number of people per remaining unit of infrastructure is reduced, which is deflationary. also, the value of capital stock is reduced, which is deflationary. the need to produce more capital stock declines due to the decline in demand (due to the decline in population due to lack of food).

in sum, the end of civilization as we know it is a deflationary event, which is actually forecast by sustained food/energy price increases.



To: russwinter who wrote (5472)1/19/2004 11:09:24 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 110194
 
The bogus CPI numbers (EXCLUDING food and energy) was up 1.9% in that period

i guess you mean there is inflation in any case. but consider: the core PCE deflator which the Fed looks at rose only 0.8% YoY--THE SMALLEST INCREASE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY of the data series going back to 1959.

also, remember you are in very good company in forecasting higher rates--EVERYBODY AGREES WITH YOU. IT IS THE MOST POPULAR OPINION IN ALL OF FINANCE. 48 out of 50 economists surveyed by the WSJ expect it. all the geniuses at FNM expect it. Bill Gross expects it. all card-carrying bears expect it as do all card-carrying bulls. all the geniuses on Barron's Roundtable. probably the UST bears to bulls ratio is even greater than the SPX bulls to bears ratio. bond bearishness is the most crowded trade on the planet.



To: russwinter who wrote (5472)1/20/2004 8:30:54 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Respond to of 110194
 
even people without jobs are not losing their houses,how weird is this?<NFG>

Mass. home foreclosures drop for 3d year in row
Appreciation and low mortgage reats aid fall
By Thomas Grillo, Globe Correspondent, 1/20/2004

Despite a sluggish economy, the number of Bay State homeowners who faced foreclosure dropped for the third consecutive year in 2003 because of double-digit home appreciation and the lowest mortgage rates in a generation.

"Even if someone lost their job they could still refinance at historically low interest rates and keep their home," said Barry Bluestone, director of the Center for Urban & Regional Policy at Northeastern University. "That's been one of the unintended consequences of the extraordinary rise in housing values."

The surge in Massachusetts home prices coupled with falling interest rates has allowed financially strapped homeowners to use the equity in their homes and keep creditors away.

As a result, foreclosures fell to 4,167 in 2003, a 7.5 percent drop from 4,506 in 2002, according to the Massachusetts Land Court.

The average price for a single-family home in Massachusetts soared 15.4 percent to $370,843 last year, up from $321,343 at the close of 2002. Anyone who purchased a home in Greater Boston for $250,000 in 1998 saw its value last year increase to $431,259, or 72.5 percent, giving them the option of borrowing on their home's equity at low rates, according to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, an arm of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Last year, the average rate for a 30-year mortgage fell to 5.83 percent, the lowest level since the federal government began tracking rates in 1971.

Danny and Lucie Johnson came close to losing their four-bedroom home in Mattapan last year. Shortly after buying the red Victorian in spring 2000 for $205,000, the couple borrowed $43,000 from Household Finance Corp. at 18 percent for a new driveway, roof, and heating system.

They later refinanced their $243,664 mortgage with Household at 12.53 percent, including $17,665.63 in points and fees. In addition, Household gave them a personal loan of $15,000, which doubled their monthly payments to nearly $3,000. And when Lucie Johnson lost her job as a medical assistant, they missed payments.

Today, the Johnsons are enrolled in the Foreclosure Assistance Program at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nationwide advocacy group with offices in Dorchester. The program is funded by $72 million from Household as part of a $484 million settlement reached in 2003 over alleged predatory lending practices.

Under the program, borrowers who have missed at least two mortgage payments will have their interest rates reduced by as much as 7 percentage points and unpaid late charges are waived. Within a year, participants are referred to lenders for market-rate loans. The Johnsons will see their monthly payment drop by $600 for at least six months until they can refinance the high-cost loan.

"I don't know what the future holds," said Lucie Johnson. "We almost lost our home and we're still scared because it's not

over." The region's housing crash in the late 1980s culminated in a record number of borrowers losing their homes, with 12,750 foreclosures in 1991. Since, foreclosures have fallen to their lowest levels in 14 years.

Karl Case, a Wellesley College economics professor and real estate analyst, said the crash began when developers built homes and condominiums at a frenzied pace while demand fell and unemployment rose. The buyers' market that ensued caused the housing bubble to burst and prices to fall, he said.

Many homeowners who bought in 1981 when mortgage interest rates reached nearly 17 percent were "upside down" on their mortgages -- a phrase used when a homeowner owes more than the home's value. That fact, coupled with high unemployment, led to the historic number of foreclosures.

Today, economists and brokers say, the New England housing market has remained hot despite rising unemployment and a lackluster economy. They say since the early 1990s few homes have been built on speculation and the majority of buyers are owner-occupants, not investors.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company