Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (21399)	11/5/2004 4:48:08 PM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Q and A from Fleck's web site tonight Q. well re "investment remifications" i would keep a very close eye on social security stuff--if this issue passes it will have a massive effect because it will increase "forced mutual fund buying". and that will result in mutual funds chasing return. and that in turn will take goog to the 1 trillion area. also a back of the envelope estimate of the stuff he is talking about with tax changes and social security suggests about 3-4 trillion in money that is not there (2 trillion alone for ss changes). if you assume that the war will spread out--recall that part of the idea is to have a "democratic" mid east. this could over 5 years or so easily add another 1-1.5 trillion. and even to just keep up the existing military is going to drive up costs 50-100 billion a year. i am not assuming all this stuff will come to pass--however i am certainly not assuming it won't either. i realize that i sound a bit shrill--but look we are talking about 3-6 trillion in money that is not there over say 5 years or so. if you then add say 300-400 billion in "normal" deficit spending you wind up with gov debt going up from 7.5 more or less to-10-13 trillion over the next 5-9 years. or at the very least a lot of money is going to get printed. it also doesn't look like oil use is going to get a lot of pressure to change from the gov. at the margin/and assuming china growth--you can assume another 100 billion a year or so on that esp if gdp is high. i fully reaize that my math looks extreme--but before you laugh me off look at the figures for each of the programs over say 5 years. and then ask youself if we wind up with flat or very slow "growth" what that implies. then by all means laugh me off. good luck to you (we make our own luck) A.• Remember - Soc Sec receipts are now used to run the govt - and iou's are issued to the Soc Sec administration in the form of treasury bonds....IF they allow people to use those receipts themselves, the govt defecit will go up one dollar for everyone dollar used by people in their own retirement accounts(or whatever the scheme is)...bottomline-they don't have the money to do this....we have been running the govt on Soc Sec reciepts for 20 years now...only most people don't know this.

To: russwinter who wrote (21399)	11/5/2004 6:52:37 PM
From: ild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Percentage is pretty much meaningless. If you look at the table in the link there are numbers as high as 80%. freddiemac.com In Q1 and Q2 of 2000 80% of refis were cashouts AND with the higher rates than the original loans. The fact is that in 2000 refi market was completely dead and only ones who wanted to put their money into NAZ were doing refis with cashouts. As I remember we has an inverted interest rate curve, so doing HELOCs would be even more expensive. Today everyone has a low rate HELOC, so they just write a check (for a downpayment for a third home).