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 Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChanceIs who wrote (239619)	2/27/2010 2:37:07 PM
From: orkrious	Respond to of 306849

Damn fine post.

To: ChanceIs who wrote (239619)	2/28/2010 10:41:06 AM
From: Perspective	Respond to of 306849

A great post! But again, what has all this unconventional Fed activity produced? All that buying of MBS, which permitted our overseas overlords to monetize our Treasury issuance for Ben, has served to inflate only the price of the MBS and Treasuries that were purchased. It has probably kept prices from falling in a few areas within the real economy through the money that the U.S. government has pumped into the mix, but I'm just not seeing the inflation that it has produced. While I'm repulsed by the fact that this transferred a huge amount of wealth from taxpayers to a select few individuals, the argument that this is going to result in inflation and high interest rates just doesn't seem to be supported by the available data. I think people should be focused on prosecuting the thefts that have occurred, not the inflation bogeyman. And I don't see where positioning ones investments to profit from inflation and higher interest rates will succeed in this environment. The thefts have occurred. The monetization has happened. It produced a jump in select asset prices and a temporary abatement of the downtrend in housing prices. If you were clever enough to ride it, congratulations. Now, barring some new change at the margin, it is not likely to continue. The asset price-devouring debt monster requires ever larger feedings to prevent prices from seeking their natural level, and I don't believe those actions are occurring. I'm not saying that they will not occur in the future, I'm just saying they don't appear to be happening now. Without them, prices are likely to begin seeking their natural level again. Agree 110% on foreclosure bans. That would be some MASSIVE transfer to the irresponsible. But what else is new... `BC

To: ChanceIs who wrote (239619)	3/5/2010 2:16:20 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Barney Frank Backtracks On GSE Statement, Realizes Put Foot In Mouth Yet Again (Per ZeroHedge - Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/05/2010 14:30 -0400) >>>We call this leadership. A deep knowledge of the weighty matters they are authorized to discharge on our behalf. Implicit?? Explicit?? Does it really matter? The government will make up the rules as we go along, and trust us, it will work out for the best. Having said all of that, I would submit that Congress in allowing Treasury to decree an explicit government backing of FNE/FRE debt, has given Treasury the authority to raise a tax. Please don't argue against the notion that stuffing FRE/FRE guarantees on my back is nothing but a tax. Congress has abdicated its responsibility as the only entity authorized to levy a tax. And it abdicated its authority to a tax cheat!!!!<<< March 5, 2010 Statement by Chairman Barney Frank Washington, DC – Today, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) issued the following statement: “I have been asked some questions by members of the media and others about my noting the distinction between the legal status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt and the debt of the U.S. Treasury. Throughout the debate over Fannie and Freddie in past years, I have noted that Fannie and Freddie debt did not have the same legal standing as Treasury debt. This does not prevent the Treasury from treating the debt of Fannie and Freddie in the manner that it believes best supports the important goal of stabilizing the financial system. Specifically, I support the intention of the Treasury to stand fully behind the terms of its December 24 statement with regard to Fannie and Freddie debt. It is also the case in going forward, as we restructure housing finance, we will make sure that there are no implicit guarantees, hints, suggestions, or winks and nods. We will be explicit about what is and is not an obligation of the federal government. “To reiterate, I continue to think that it would be a mistake for Congress to take action that formally conferred on Fannie and Freddie debt the legal status of debt issued by the Treasury. But nothing in that position prevents Treasury from acting as it thinks best with regard to its obligation to provide stability to the housing market and the financial system.” _________________________________ And...ummmm.....like...since when did Treasury have an obligation to stabilize housing??? Did Congress foist that on it explicitly (or implicitly) when it created the Community Reinvestment Act and forced banks to make 50% of new mortgages to below median salary individuals - or whatever market contorting insanity. So...like...Congress adds instability and Treasury takes it away. WTF!?!?!?!?! Treasury is just there to follow orders and (attempt) to finance Congress' latest Faustian Bargain.