Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Will cities use eminent domain to seize and write down underwater mortgages — and kill the housing recovery?”

Let me rephrase Mr Pethokoukis’s question for those operating in today’s post-Constitutional milieu: “Will Democrats (and certain very “progressive” Republicans) get away with buying votes by essentially stealing mortgage investment money that has always assumed to be secured — completely violating the spirit of eminent domain, even post-Kelo, and creating a 21st version of the all-encompassing Commerce Clause, while effectively moving toward the nationalization of mortgage lending?”

And having re-phrased that, let me then answer it for him: Just so long as John Roberts can figure out how to call it a tax, of course they will.

Government-sanctioned thievery is what they do.

Or is the whole gear shaft to the ass of secured bondholders during the auto company bailouts just so 2009 that we’ve forgotten?

38 Replies to ““Will cities use eminent domain to seize and write down underwater mortgages — and kill the housing recovery?””

  1. cranky-d says:

    They keep doing their best to kill the economy completely, but the damned thing just won’t die.

    This might finish it off, though.

  2. mondamay says:

    gear shaft to the ass of secured bondholders

    I knew there would be more “anal hazing”.

  3. JHoward says:

    Every Asset That Depends on Cheap, Abundant Credit (Housing, Bonds, Stocks) Is Doomed

    About a month ago I asked What If Stocks, Bonds and Housing All Go Down Together? (May 24, 2013). Why would such an outrageous thought even occur to me?

    Four words: financialization, debtocracy, diminishing returns.

    The entire global economy, developed and developing nations alike, is now dependent on cheap, abundant credit for everything: for “growth,” for asset inflation, and ultimately for central state deficit spending, which props up all the cartels, rentier arrangements, fiefdoms and armies of toadies, lackeys, apparatchiks and embezzlers that suck off the Status Quo.

    […]

    You might think that The Federal Reserve’s policy of making credit cheap and abundant would goose people to consume and invest more money. Alas, the velocity of money is hitting historic lows: the Fed may be creating credit but people and enterprises aren’t putting that money into circulation.

    It’s called diminishing returns: every dollar of debt creates interest payments, but it’s no longer doing households or enterprises any good. The Fatal Disease of the Status Quo: Diminishing Returns (May 1, 2013).

    That’s why all asset classes that depend on cheap, abundant credit are doomed: once yields/rates rise, the valuations of those assets implode. And once valuations implode, there’s not enough collateral left to support the loans used buy all those cheap-credit-inflated assets. So the financial system also implodes.

    Except good Establicans inform JHo that the way to grow stuff in a world mysteriously bereft of goods and services is inkjet money. Except…except that their Keynesian Multiplier, isn’t.

    Or maybe they mean the velocity of the decline in velocity is increasing.

    It’s almost like this guy is right. Except that he just can’t be.

  4. Darleen says:

    On a Saturday (!!!) the California assembly met, and passed without debate, a bill that would gut a provision of Prop 13, whereby local cities/counties could pass local bonds on a 55% instead of 2/3rds vote.

    Why does this matter? Because unlike State Bonds that are paid back out of the general funds (income/sales taxes that affect everyone), local bonds are secured by property owners only.

    CA’s current total long-term debt is now measured in TRILLIONs so, yeah, the socialist Dems are bound and determined to fuck up capitalism and its mechanisms of private property ownership.

  5. JHoward says:

    CA’s current total longer term debt is now measured in TRILLIONs

    Extrapolating over a nation, it just may be that we really are about a quarter quadrillion over-leveraged. Except that there too, we just can’t be.

    Because JHo’s blizzard of bullshit and like that.

  6. bgbear says:

    push you into the water and then you are suppose to thank them for selling you an overpriced waterlogged lifesaver.

  7. Darleen says:

    JH

    There was all sorts of glad-handing and neener-neerying when it appeared our revenues exceeded our budget (for this year).

    It is weird to have Jerry Brown actually fighting his own Dems to not spend this one-time-windfall.

    The Dems purposely don’t talk about our long term debt, just what happens each year… or they only talk about the state-debt not counting what the cities & counties are doing.

    The dishonesty is pretty damned breathtaking.

  8. EBL says:

    Well Roberts would probably find that unconsitutional, just to say “See, there are no black helicopters following me…”

  9. Curmudgeon says:

    Every Asset That Depends on Cheap, Abundant Credit (Housing, Bonds, Stocks) Is Doomed

    But wait–isn’t housing an anti-inflationary hard asset? Given Obamunist “quantitative easing”, I can’t help but think the rebounding of housing is largely due to that.

  10. Why does this matter? Because unlike State Bonds that are paid back out of the general funds (income/sales taxes that affect everyone), local bonds are secured by property owners only.

    My brother, who was unable to break out of California, is 55, spent his entire working life in construction, has issues with stamina and mobility due to work-related injuries, and no savings.

    And his house is old and on a large lot close to a busy retail street.

    He doesn’t want to move. The California legislature clearly wants him gone.

  11. JHoward says:

    But wait–isn’t housing an anti-inflationary hard asset? Given Obamunist “quantitative easing”, I can’t help but think the rebounding of housing is largely due to that.

    The housing rebound is a gutted middle class renting back their properties from the cartel: Banks having foreclosed them after the bust of their last fake money boom, other corporatist cabals are snapping up addresses by the thousands and thousands.

    Ain’t representative govt great? Just remember that fake money can’t possibly redistribute wealth. That would be bullshit.

  12. Curmudgeon says:

    The housing rebound is a gutted middle class renting back their properties from the cartel: Banks having foreclosed them after the bust of their last fake money boom, other corporatist cabals are snapping up addresses by the thousands and thousands.

    Ain’t representative govt great? Just remember that fake money can’t possibly redistribute wealth. That would be bullshit.

    Be that as it may, if the Obamunists are making paper worthless, shouldn’t housing, like gold, take off?

    Then again, lately gold isn’t doing well either. Perhaps in general the Obamunists are just killing off economic activity period.

  13. JHoward says:

    Be that as it may, if the Obamunists are making paper worthless, shouldn’t housing, like gold, take off?

    From the link:

    Here is a chart of mortgage rates since 1970. Rates were pushed to 17+% to snuff inflation in the early 1980s, and they’ve dropped over the past 30 years to historic lows: the rate for a fixed-rate 30-year conventional mortgage was about 3.5% a few weeks ago. It has now risen above 4%.

    null

    In the golden age of growth from 1991 to 2002, mortgages rates bounced between about 7% and 9%. The band from 1970 to 1979 was about 7.5% to 10%.

    In other words, in eras of strong growth and low inflation, mortgage rates have been around 7% to 9%. So what happens to the monthly payments when the mortgage rate doubles from 4% to 8%? The payments double, too. And what happens to the price of houses when rates double? They fall to the point that households borrowing money at 7.5% – 8% can afford to buy a house, i.e. a price much lower than today’s Housing Bubble 2.0 prices.

    Just remember that everything is manipulated and anticipated movements are therefore frequently inverted, at least in the short term.

  14. Curmudgeon says:

    In the golden age of growth from 1991 to 2002, mortgages rates bounced between about 7% and 9%. The band from 1970 to 1979 was about 7.5% to 10%.

    In other words, in eras of strong growth and low inflation, mortgage rates have been around 7% to 9%.

    Uh, that’s either not worded right or flat out wrong. 1970-79 was NOT a period of strong growth and low inflation, although 1994-2000 was.

  15. Curmudgeon says:

    And when the Obamunists and Bernake first announced “quantitative easing” and “Stimulus” in 2009, my first thought was “OMG, Jimmuh Carturd again, stagflation.”

    And real estate did very well then as a hard asset, like gold.

  16. leigh says:

    Global monetary collapse is right over the horizon. The Chinese just had a giant credit bubble burst. The Japanese aren’t far behind.

    When giant power brokers start dumping metals (gold, silver, copper, et al) in the commodities market, bad things are afoot.

  17. Curmudgeon says:

    I don’t think anyone here is not saying a monetary collapse is coming. The question is, what kind of monetary collapse and how. Given the track record of liberal Demunists, I am betting on stagflation.

    At the same time, however, I am trying to pay down all my debt, even though stagflation favors individual debtors, because the economic dislocations caused by stagflation (like losing one’s job) will wipe out the unwary.

  18. Squid says:

    The silver lining is that the rest of the country will have a chance to see what happens to the first few cities who abuse their powers to “renegotiate” private mortgages. One hopes they learn from others’ mistakes.

  19. leigh says:

    What I am saying, poorly I guess, is that the US is not an isolated economy any longer. It hasn’t been for years. What happens here isn’t necessarily only an effect of our monetary policy, it is an effect of the global monetary system. When the whole world banking system collapses, it doesn’t matter who has a sterling credit rating. There won’t be any creditors because there won’t be any money.

    It’s a part of what JHo speaks of often: fiat money that is tied to promises made on butterfly kisses and crossed fingers. Not tied to a gold standard or even a silver standard, our money is two-ply bathroom tissue.

    A lot of this is tied to energy policy, as well. Our government is trying to keep us cursing the darkness when we don’t have anymore candle-watt. Japan has been buying oil rather than getting their nuclear power program back on line. They aren’t going to continue to do so for much longer and neither are we.

  20. JHoward says:

    When the whole world banking system collapses, it doesn’t matter who has a sterling credit rating. There won’t be any creditors because there won’t be any money.

    Yes.

    Money is debt. Money is debt. If all debts sought settlement, there’d be no liquidity whatsoever but many hundreds of trillions in debt entries would still exist.

    Money is also policy and policy is progressive and progressive policy moves worlds.

    It’s all Jenga, I’d say, but I’m lost in that blizzard of bullshit of mine and no, this would never constitute power. Influence. Manipulation.

    Because.

  21. leigh says:

    Jenga is correct, JHo. That tower is looking pretty shaky from here.

  22. Curmudgeon says:

    What I am saying, poorly I guess, is that the US is not an isolated economy any longer. It hasn’t been for years. What happens here isn’t necessarily only an effect of our monetary policy, it is an effect of the global monetary system. When the whole world banking system collapses, it doesn’t matter who has a sterling credit rating. There won’t be any creditors because there won’t be any money.

    It’s a part of what JHo speaks of often: fiat money that is tied to promises made on butterfly kisses and crossed fingers. Not tied to a gold standard or even a silver standard, our money is two-ply bathroom tissue.

    A lot of this is tied to energy policy, as well

    But again, how is this different from the 1970’s, save the lack of Soviets, and a more global economy? (Although what happened in Europe, the Middle East, and Japan certainly affected the USA back then too).

    At least we don’t have energy price controls and the resulting shortages. I am sure the Demunists are ready to dust off those too….

  23. Curmudgeon says:

    OK. Again, I’m not saying we aren’t screwed. My question is how we are screwed. I suppose the rest of you think we are screwed with a deflationary crash. I am thinking it will be a stagflationary one.

  24. leigh says:

    Our national debt is actually about 3 times what we are told it is. Congress is crafting new and more expensive legislation every minute that it isn’t giving itself and the president a pay raise. Yes, Obama gave himself a $200,000 a year raise. The fat cat. Half the country doesn’t pay any federal taxes at all and enjoys the EITC as well as many state and federal programs that enrich their lives and impoverish ours as tax payers.

    Home loan interest rates are at historic lows. Good news, right? Wrong. Banks lend money to make money.

    We are engaged in three or four not-wars and will become involved in Syria in the near future. Yes, we will. Don’t listen to those who say we won’t. We’ll go in in an advisory capacity and it will end up being another Vietnam. How are we going to sustain all of this global spending on not-wars? Well, we sure aren’t making a killing selling munitions and aircraft or ships to other countries. We’re Uncle Sam’s discount war goods over here.

    Let JHo tell you some more. He has graphs and everything.

  25. eCurmudgeon says:

    Will Democrats (and certain very “progressive” Republicans) get away with buying votes by essentially stealing mortgage investment money that has always assumed to be secured — completely violating the spirit of eminent domain, even post-Kelo, and creating a 21st version of the all-encompassing Commerce Clause, while effectively moving toward the nationalization of mortgage lending?

    I expect it to be the cornerstone of the Liz Warren presidential campaign in 2016.

  26. JHoward says:

    My question is how we are screwed.

    Again.

  27. It’s a part of what JHo speaks of often: fiat money that is tied to promises made on butterfly kisses and crossed fingers. Not tied to a gold standard or even a silver standard, our money is two-ply bathroom tissue.

    Gold-standard money was a promise too — only actual gold could be anything but a debt instrument.

  28. bh says:

    Sounds like “blizzard of bullshit” has caught on.

    Let’s try a new one, “Gulling the rubes.”

    “Just remember that everything is manipulated and anticipated movements are therefore frequently inverted, at least in the short term.”

    See, some theories aren’t falsifiable. When they run into problems, all it really shows is a far, far deeper conspiracy. Buy the newsletter, buy it now.

  29. JHoward says:

    Here’s a piece from the newsletter of that rube-gulling conspiratorialist Peter Schiff about unnatural causes and effects. I’ll post the whole thing to spare you the inconvenience of absorbing it as well.

    As usual the Federal Reserve media reaction machine has fallen for a poorly executed head fake. It has fallen for this move many times in the past, and for its efforts, it has tackled nothing but air. Yet right on cue, it took the bait once more. Somehow the takeaway from Wednesday’s release of the June Fed statement and Chairman Ben Bernanke’s press conference was that the central bank is likely to begin scaling back, or “tapering,” its $85 billion per month quantitative easing program sometime later this year, and that the program may be completely wound down by the middle of next year.

    Although this scenario is about as likely as an NSA-sponsored ticker tape parade for whistle blower Edward Snowden, all of the market segments reacted as if it were a fait accompli. The stock market – convinced that it will lose the support of ultra-low, long-term interest rates and the added consumer spending that results from a nascent housing bubble – sold off in triple digits. The bond market, sensing that its biggest and busiest customer will be exiting the market, followed a similarly negative trajectory. The sell-off in government and corporate debt pushed yields up to 21 month highs. In foreign exchange markets, the dollar rallied off its four-month lows based on the belief that Fed tightening will support the currency. And lastly, the gold market, sensing that an end of quantitative easing would eliminate the inflationary fears that have partially fueled gold’s spectacular rise, sold off nearly five percent to a new two-and-a-half year low.

    All of this came as a result of Bernanke’s mild commitments to begin easing back on permanent QE sometime later this year if the economy continued to improve the way he expected. The chairman did not really elaborate on what types of improvements he had seen, or how much farther those unidentified trends would need to go before he would finally pull the trigger. He was however careful to point out that any policy shift, be it for less or more quantitative easing, would not be dependent on incoming data, but on the Fed’s interpretation of that data. By stressing repeatedly that its data goalposts were “thresholds rather than triggers,” the chairman gained further latitude to pursue any stance the Fed chooses regardless of the data.

    Yet the mere and obvious mention that tapering was even possible, combined with the chairman’s fairly sunny disposition (perhaps caused by the realization that the real mess will likely be his successor’s problem to clean up), was enough to convince the market that the post-QE world was at hand. This conclusion is wrong.

    Although many haven’t yet realized it, the financial markets are stuck in a “Waiting for Godot” era in which the change in policy that all are straining to see will never in fact arrive. Most fail to grasp the degree to which the “recovery” will stall without the $85 billion per month that the Fed is currently pumping into the economy.

    What exactly has convinced the Fed that the economy is improving? From what I can tell, the evidence centered on the rise in stock and real estate prices, and the confidence and spending that follow as a result of the wealth effect. But inflated asset prices are completely dependent on QE and are likely to reverse course even before it is removed. And while it is painfully clear that expectations about QE continuance have made a far bigger impact on the stock, bond, and real estate markets than any other economic data points, many must be assuming that this dependency will soon end.

    Those who hold this belief have naively described QE as the economy’s “training wheels.” (In reality the program is currently our only wheels.) They are convinced that the kindling of QE will inevitably ignite a fire in the larger economy. But the big lumber is still too dampened by debt, government spending, regulation, and high asset prices to catch fire – all we have gotten is smoke instead. A few mirrors supplied by the Fed merely completed the illusion. The larger problem of course is that even though the stimulus is the only wheels, the Fed must remove them anyways as we are cycling toward the edge of a cliff.

    Although Bernanke dodged the question in his press conference, the Fed has broken the normal market for mortgage backed securities. While it’s true that the Fed only owns 14% of all outstanding MBS (the “small fraction” he referred to in the press conference), it is by far the largest purchaser of newly issued mortgage debt. What would happen to the market if the Fed were no longer buying? There are no longer enough private buyers to soak up the issuance. Those who do remain would certainly expect higher yields if the option of selling to the Fed was no longer on the table. Put bluntly, the Fed is the market right now and has been for years.

    A clear-eyed look at the likely consequences of a pull-back in QE should cause an abandonment of the optimistic assumptions behind the Fed’s forecast. Interest rates are already rising rapidly based simply on the expectation of tapering. Imagine how high rates would go if the Fed actually tried to sell some of the mortgages it already owns. But the fact is the mere anticipation of such an event has already sent mortgage rates north of 4%, and without a lifeline from the Fed in the form of more QE, those rates will soon exceed 5%. This increase will greatly impact the housing market. Speculative buyers who have lifted the market will become sellers. More foreclosure will hit the market, just as higher home prices and mortgage rates price any remaining legitimate buyers out of the market. Housing prices will fall to new post bubble lows, sinking the phony recovery in the process. The wealth effect will work in reverse: spending and confidence will fall, unemployment will rise, and we will be back in recession even before the Fed begins to taper.

    In fact, the rise in mortgage rates seen over the last month has already produced pain in the financial world, with banks reporting a rapid decline in refinancing applications. By the time rates hit 5%, the current rally in real estate will have screeched to a halt. With personal income and wage growth essentially stagnant, individual buyers are extremely dependent on the affordability allowed by ultra-low rates. A near 50% increase in mortgage rates, which would result from an increase in rates from 3.25% to 5.0%, would price a great many buyers out of the market. Higher rates would also cool much of the housing demand that has been coming from the private equity funds that have been a factor in pushing up real estate prices in recent years. Falling home prices would likely trigger a new wave of defaults and housing related bankruptcies that plunged the economy into recession five years ago.

    A similar dynamic would occur in the market for U.S. Treasury debt. Despite Bernanke’s assurances that the Fed is not monetizing the government’s debt, the central bank has been buying nearly 70% of the new issuance in recent years. Already, rates on 10-year treasury debt have creeped up by more than 50% in less than two months to over 2.5%. Any actual decrease or cessation in buying – let alone the selling that would be needed to unwind the Fed’s multi-trillion dollar balance sheet – would place the Treasury market under extreme pressure. Since low rates are the life blood of our borrow and spend economy, it is highly likely that higher rates will lead directly to lower stock prices, lower GDP growth, and higher unemployment. Since rising asset prices and the confidence and spending they produce is the basis for Bernanke’s rosy forecast, new lows in house prices and a bear market in stocks will likely reverse those forecasts on a dime.

    Lost on almost everyone is the effect higher interest rates and a slowing economy will have on federal budget deficits. As unemployment rises, tax revenues will fall and expenditures will rise. In addition, rising rates will not only make it more expensive for the Fed to finance larger deficits, it will also make it more expensive to refinance maturing debts. Furthermore, the profit checks Fannie and Freddie have been paying the Treasury will turn into bills for losses, as a new wave of foreclosures comes tumbling in.

    It’s fascinating how the goal posts have moved quickly on the Fed’s playing field. Months ago the conversation focused on the “exit strategy” it would use to unwind the trillions in bonds and mortgages that it had accumulated over the last few years. Despite apparent improvements in the economy, those discussions have given way to the more modest expectations for the “tapering” of QE. I believe that we should really be expecting a “tapering” of the tapering conversations.

    As a result, I expect that the Fed will continue to pantomime that an eventual Exit Strategy is preparing for a grand entrance, even as their timeline and decision criteria become ever more ambiguous. In truth, I believe that the Fed’s next big announcement will be to increase, not diminish QE. After all, Bernanke made clear in his press conference that if the economy does not perform up to his expectations, he will simply do more of what has already failed.

    Of course, when the Fed is forced to make this concession, it should be obvious to a critical mass that the recovery is a sham. Investors will realize that years of QE have only exacerbated the problems it was meant to solve. When the grim reality of QE infinity sets in, the dollar will drop, gold will climb, and the real crash will finally be upon us. Buckle up.

    Wait, so mortgage rates jumped a point and gold lost 5% in a matter of hours because the possible Magical Keynesian Multiplier of $85 billion new dollars a month — that’s 1.02T a year for jeenyuses — might at some future date a year from now maybe not be there?

    Get out!

    Damn, it’s almost like…like everything is manipulated and anticipated movements are therefore frequently inverted.

    Demonstrating your own point isn’t how you do this, bh. Probably you won’t follow that rationale either.

  30. geoffb says:

    Or is the whole gear shaft to the ass of secured bondholders during the auto company bailouts just so 2009 that we’ve forgotten?

    Round two coming up.

  31. SDN says:

    Then there’s also that wonderful idea where cities, counties, etc. simply use eminent domain to confiscate any property with an underwater mortgage, tell the mortgage holders (including Fannie, Freddie, etc.) to suck the Big Green Weenie, and give the houses to the occupants.

    That one would be interesting……

  32. bh says:

    There’s nothing quite so amusing as watching someone pretend to know what’s going on when they can’t even use standard terms correctly.

  33. bh says:

    Anyone want to guess where JHo is talking out of his ass above?

    It’s not particularly complicated.

  34. John Bradley says:

    Here I thought it’d already been determined that Leigh was this blog’s Official Ass-Talker-Outer.

    “There can be only one!” — for reasons never adequately explained.

  35. bh says:

    “There can be only one!” — for reasons never adequately explained.

    According to Highlander, it’s because of the whole “only beheading one’s foes makes one truly immortal” tournament.

  36. JHoward says:

    Anyone want to guess where JHo is talking out of his ass above?

    Is it related to — assuming you have a spare “afternoon” to do it — threatening to disprove all the proofs for God never submitted?

    Or might it relate to having arguments against money by progressive, Keynesian, industry-warping policy pared down to the exponential instability of its system, there to be denied anyway because because, conflating them with goldbuggery and well, we can’t have that either?

    I mean, since we’re guessing.

    Related: et tu, Davis Stockman, you wrong-end-talking deformationalist?

Comments are closed.