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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Chispas who wrote (44928)1/21/2006 5:34:05 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
Housing divide widens
Smaller mortgages falling to foreclosures as high-end sales climb

12:00 AM CST on Saturday, January 21, 2006

By BRENDAN M. CASE, STEVE BROWN and IEVA M. AUGSTUMS / The Dallas Morning News

In a healthy local housing market, a sign of trouble has appeared: More people are losing their homes to foreclosure than at any time since the Texas real estate bust of the 1980s.

The causes run from bad luck to bad financial decisions: job loss, divorce, a health crisis, skyrocketing energy bills, out-of-control credit card debt or a mortgage payment that turned out to be unaffordable.

But there also seems to be a sharpening contrast between real estate markets at either end of the economic ladder.

As residential foreclosures jumped 30 percent from a year ago in North Texas, the average mortgage on foreclosed houses fell to $129,000, compared with almost $146,000 a year ago.

Meanwhile, home sales set records last year, with a strong 20 percent increase in sales of homes priced over $400,000.

But there was a 4 percent decrease in sales of homes priced below $110,000.

"What we're seeing develop in the marketplace is the haves and the have-nots," said Craig Jarrell, who heads up the Dallas operations of Pulaski Mortgage Co.

"Either you've got money and you've got a job and you're buying a new house and you're rocking along," he said. "Or you're underwater and can't buy a new house, and can't afford the one you're in and you're going into foreclosure."

Newer mortgages, too

That's not the whole picture, of course. The foreclosure hammer also recently fell on an Addison home valued at $1.5 million, a North Dallas house valued at nearly $870,000 and a Coppell property worth about $430,000.

But Connie Zetterlund, a Coldwell Banker Residential agent who specializes in foreclosed property sales, says she's noticed increasing signs of trouble at lower-priced properties.

"The price ranges are a little lower than last year," she said. "There are a ton of foreclosures out there right now."

That's not the only trend. Ms. Zetterlund has also noticed more trouble among newer mortgages, the ones acquired after the economic downturn earlier this decade.

"I'm seeing a lot of properties bought in 2004 and already going to foreclosure," she said.

In a fix

Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Dallas has seen an influx of people coming in with housing concerns.

"With the low interest rate, people are biting off more than they can chew," said Gail Cunningham, the company's vice president of business relations. "They've been extended a loan that really eats up a significant part of their income."

Even some mortgage lenders, worried about rising foreclosures, warn would-be homebuyers against borrowing too much.

"People a lot of times are getting themselves way overextended, and they're taking some nontraditional products," said Gary Akright, a mortgage broker in Dallas with Dominion Mortgage Corp.

One reason is the range of newfangled offerings such as interest-only mortgages and certain kinds of adjustable rate mortgages. Designed to hold down costs in the early years, payments on such loans can rise sharply later.

Proponents of such mortgages say they help homebuyers in places where home values are rising quickly, or people who plan to live in a home for just a few years.

But think hard about future costs before taking out a mortgage, says Bonnie Peterson, the director of education and marketing at Consumer Credit Counseling Service of North Central Texas, which serves Collin County.

Ms. Peterson, who is having a house built in the Collin County town of Princeton, recently went through the mortgage application process and found that lenders were eager to provide her with more money than she wanted to borrow.

"I was qualified for more, but I didn't think I could afford it," she said. "I want to have enough money to live the life I want to live."

More than half the potential foreclosure victims Ms. Peterson sees at work are able to save their homes, especially when they seek financial advice early, she says.

"A lot of people don't want to talk to anyone, or they wait too long," she said.

Bankruptcy option

Another option is bankruptcy, even though a new law that took effect last year made bankruptcy proceedings more onerous. Filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy gives debtors up to 60 months to repay some or all of their debts. It stops the foreclosure process and gives them a way to make their payments.

"If they want to keep their home, bankruptcy is the way to go," said Richard Venable, a consumer bankruptcy lawyer in Bedford.

The last time local foreclosures were so high was during the Oil Patch recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The good news is that today's foreclosures make up a much smaller percentage of the overall housing market because the residential base in North Texas has more than doubled.

Areawide problem

Another difference: Back then, home defaults were often clustered in specific neighborhoods. These days, they're all over.

George Roddy, whose Foreclosure Listing Service Inc. has tracked North Texas foreclosures for more than 20 years, said, "I remember there were subdivisions in the late 1980s that had huge numbers of foreclosures.

"Today we are not seeing that, and it's so spread out that it doesn't focus on a subdivision or neighborhood," he said.

And while in the '80s most people owed more than what their houses were worth, the latest stats show that foreclosed homeowners have at least some equity.

In the last foreclosure boom, lenders dumped houses and it wasn't uncommon to see property values fall by 30 or 40 percent in a neighborhood, Mr. Roddy said.

Now, some real estate investors are looking at the Dallas-Fort Worth area as a place where bargains can be had for lender sales. So far, however, lenders are seeking top dollar for such homes, even if that means keeping them on the market longer, realtors say.

"We certainly haven't seen the value loss like we had in the 1980s," Mr. Roddy said. "But if the foreclosure numbers hold up like we've seen for February, it could be pretty scary."

dallasnews.com



To: Chispas who wrote (44928)1/22/2006 12:28:33 AM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
Why does the former Dean of The University of Chicago Law School think the Senate should not confirm Alito...?

huffingtonpost.com

By Geoffrey R. Stone*

01.21.2006

Why the Senate Should Not Confirm Samuel Alito

I supported the confirmation of John Roberts and, until recently, the confirmation of Samuel Alito. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion, however, that Judge Alito should not be confirmed, and that this is a matter of real importance to the nation.

Judge Alito is a smart, experienced, and knowledgeable jurist. I have no doubt of his legal ability.
I do not share either his judicial philosophy (apparently a mixture of quasi-originalism and social conservatism) or his views about many issues likely to come before the Supreme Court (ranging from the right to privacy to federalism). In such circumstances, I ordinarily would support his confirmation. On balance, the Senate should give more weight to excellence than judicial philosophy, and that is why I endorsed the confirmation of John Roberts.

Why, then, should the Senate deny confirmation to Judge Alito? The most fundamental responsibility of the Supreme Court is to preserve both the separation of powers and the individual liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. They are the bulwarks of our freedom. History teaches that these indispensable elements of our constitutional system are most threatened in time of war. Too often in wartime, the President demands excessive authority in his role as "commander-in-chief" and the President and Congress run roughshod over civil liberties in their effort to protect, or appear to protect, the nation.

This was true when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, Roosevelt ordered the internment of more than 110,000 individuals of Japanese descent, Nixon ordered unlawful break-ins and wiretaps against those who opposed the Vietnam War, and Congress enacted the Sedition Act of 1798, the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act of 1940. We hope, of course, that Presidents and members of Congress will act with restraint and wisdom. But we know that, in times of crisis, they frequently overreact to the perceived danger, manipulate public opinion, and needlessly sacrifice our liberties.

In our constitutional system, the last line of defense against such excesses is the Supreme Court. With life tenure, the Justices are largely insulated from the need to please any particular constituency for personal advancement. And with their unique commitment to long-term principle rather than short-term political expediency, they are well placed to resist the fears and anxieties of wartime.

Through our history, the Court has had a mixed record in fulfilling this responsibility. During World War I, the Court upheld the convictions of individuals for criticizing the war; during World War II, it upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans, and during the Cold War, it initially upheld the persecution of American citizens because of their political beliefs and associations.

At other moments, however, the Court has performed admirably. During the Korean War, it held that President Truman had exceeded his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief when he sought to take over the steel industry; in the latter part of the Cold War, it held unconstitutional government actions directed against "disloyal" Americans; during the Vietnam War, it rejected both the President's effort to enjoin the publication of the Pentagon Papers and his claim that he could constitutionally conduct "national security" wiretaps without judicial warrants; and during the war on terrorism, it rejected Bush's claims that he had the "inherent" authority to deny habeas corpus to individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay and that he could unilaterally decide to detain American citizens indefinitely without even a hearing on whether they were in fact "enemy combatants."

The single most critical factor that distinguishes the decisions in which the Court failed from those in which it succeeded was the character and constitutional philosophy of the Justices serving at the time. Those Justices who abdicated their responsibility and chose blindly to defer to excessive presidential claims approved the pervasive suppression of dissent during World War I, the Japanese internment, and the rampant abuses of McCarthyism. Those who were determined to ask hard questions and to insist that the President and Congress comply with the Constitution gave the nation the steel seizure decision, the Pentagon Papers decision, and the 2004 decision preserving the due process rights of American citizens.

Now, President Bush arrogantly asserts that he has the inherent constitutional authority to wiretap American citizens on American soil without first obtaining a warrant, in direct defiance of federal legislation and the Fourth Amendment. This is on top of his previous assertions of inherent authority to employ torture, wiretap lawyer-client communications, confine American citizens incommunicado, and close deportation and other legal proceedings from public scrutiny.

Given the times in which we live, we need and deserve a Supreme Court willing to examine independently these extraordinary assertions of executive authority. We can fight and win the war on terrorism without inflicting upon ourselves and our posterity another regrettable episode like the Red Scare and the Japanese internment. But that will happen only if the Justices of the Supreme Court are willing to fulfill their essential role in our constitutional system.

Whatever else Judge Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism, and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander-in-chief. That, in my judgment, poses a serious threat to the nation, and is a more than adequate reason for the Senate - Republicans and Democrats alike - to deny his confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.
_________________________________________

*Geoffrey R. Stone is the Harry Kalven, Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. From 1987 to 1994 he served as Dean of the University of Chicago Law School and from 1994 to 2002 he served as Provost of the University of Chicago. His most recent book, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (W.W. Norton 2004), has received both the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize for the Best Book of the Year in History. You can email him at gstone@uchicago.edu