|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
People join the military for any number of reasons: patriotism, career or education opportunities, sense of duty, legacy(dad, grandad, uncle were military)....
Once in, one is not given much choice as to where to go-you're military property, 24/7. You're paid to do a job, you do it.
In the past year, I have attended at least 10 funerals for KIA. Whether they believed they were where they were for a 'good purpose' is irrelevant. Their mothers lost a child, wives lost a husband, babies lost a parent.
Now my nephew will be landing in the sandbox probably in January; my friend's son is there now. <h3>It doesn't matter why. It's their job. We wish it wasn't, so we post dumb questions like this....
I prefer to just say "Thank You".</h3>
|
...and I prefer to repost Bill O'Reilly's comments from this thread's OP....and ask again....What The "EFF" are our "defense forces"...DEFENDING??? WHAT VALUES...RIGHTS...PRINCIPLES...BELIEFS....DOES THE USA HAVE REMAINING..THAT ARE EFFING WORTH FIGHTING...or DYING TO PRESERVE????
....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by O'Reilly
So just talking about your personal security, would you support President John Edwards?
Remember, no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant.
"Talking Points" believes most Americans reject that foolishness.......
|
Here is a quick description of what the following "stuff", indicates....First....it took seventeen years....from 1978 until 1995 for new housing starts in the US to return to 1978 levels.... 1,226,000 housing starts per year.
In the second quote box from the bottom, an excerpt from a current article:
Quote:
.....
Housing starts fell 3.6 percent to an annual rate of 1.285 million.......
|
<h3>...Soooo, the number of current housing starts is now....only at a level that is 59,000 more units bult annually (that's only an average of 1180 houses per state...) than the peak rate....in the US, 29 years ago.....</h3>
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A963958260
Brisk Pace In Building Of Homes
By ROBERT D. HERSHEY JR.,
Published: January 21, 1995
....In single-family homes, December construction was at an annual pace of 1,226,000, a 2.8 percent rise that lifted the overall 1994 gain to 6 percent. At 1,195,600 homes, the yearly total was the highest since 1978.....
|
<h3>The last major housing slump lasted 17 years.....</h3>but are government, the Fed, Treasury, SEC....are ignoring all of that....they are part of a "system" that, two years ago, passed personal bankruptcy "reform" that made it much more difficult for Americans to declare bankruptcy and receive protection from repayment of debt, even in the case of debt triggered by sudden medical care expenses..
Now, instead of requiring large banks, hedge funds that only the rich may invest in....per acts of congress.....to SELL, or mark-to-market, financial investments backed by pools of mortgage loans or pools of other loans...securitized into bonds and sold by the banks and brokerages to other banks, hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds, and to other investors..<h3>....at current market prices....</h3>...i.e. sell at the "going rate"....the rate that you or I would have to sell for...on any given day, when we decided, or needed to sell a financial asset, these government agencies have been convinced by the wealthiest investors and our biggest banks, to let them borrow agains these bonds and MBS at artifically high prices, and to risk the solvency of the banks themselves by the Fed allowing them to lend more of the bank's reserves to the banks' brokerage affiliates, than regulations designed to protect the deposits of the public, allow !
<h3>Ironically, if government agencies had not interfered by propping up wealthy investors losing investments, the stock market indexes would be lower and more stable, and the mortgaged backed securities could have been sold at much higher prices than the current REAL market prices are, now. THE POINT???? The Fed and US Treadury are supporting (LEADING??) a scheme to spread the risks and the losses that only the big banks and wealthy investors were holding, earlier this year....onto ALL OF US!!!</h3>
The decline in housing valuations has only just begun....in the last decline, it took new housing starts, 17 years to regain the old peak annual rate. It helps no prospective home buyer or current home owner in financial distress to buy or to keep a residential property, with a loan obliglation in an amount at or near current prices....since those prices will almost certainly fall, dramatically....yet....that is just what the POTUS, the Fed, and most in congress are trying to do....
All of this serves to raise the costs of those of us with modest assets, to the gain of those who made huge profits securitizing mortgage debt and lending money to unqualified applicants to provide ever more liquidity to drive up housing prices and the profit streams of banks, brokers, lenders, builders, realtors, and fortune 500 corporations....<h3>If they are successful, they will collude to keep the valuations of stocks, residential properties, and loans securitized into bonds, high enough for them to transfer ownership of all of this artificially tweaked crap, from THEM to the rest of us.....</h3>
<h2>This is the game that they elite play...and it is not worth fighting for!</h2>
But it is worth thinking about...writing about....protesting about...exposing...sabotaging.....ENDING !!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/...3citicorp.html
Banks And U.S. Treasury Discuss $100 Billion Support Fund
Forbes.com staff 10.13.07, 8:59 AM ET
Leading U.S. banks have reportedly been meeting with U.S. Treasury officials about creating an up-to-$100-billion fund to stave off the danger that there could be a fire sale of shaky mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and other distressed assets following the recent global credit crunch.
Such a fire sale could force big banks and hedge funds to write off or write down similar assets, setting off a second wave of the credit crunch that could flood into the broader economy.
The talks represent the latest official effort to restore liquidity to credit markets. In August, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates. Earlier this month, Fed officials said while there are signs of improvement, some markets remain under stress.
Citicorp, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and HSBC are among the banks taking part in the series of discussions that have been held over the past two or three weeks at the Treasury Department in Washington, D.C., according to published reports.
The focus of the fund would be structured investment vehicles, off-balance sheet funds created by banks and which issue short-term debt such as commercial paper to acquire and finance specific longer-term assets, recently subprime mortgage-backed securities and similar assets. They are typically bought by institutional investors seeking to boost their returns without raising their credit risk.
SIVs hold $320 billion of assets worldwide, down from $395 billion in July, according to Moody's Investor Services. At their peak they accounted for more than a third of the asset-backed commercial paper market. Many SIVs had trouble rolling over their short-term debt when the credit crunch struck in July as losses in securities linked to subprime mortgages started to spread, leading to the $75 billion sell-off.
Citicorp, which invented the SIV in the 1980s, has seven such funds with $100 billion in assets. It has warned shareholders that third-quarter profits would fall 60% thanks to $5.9 billion in charges and losses from the late-summer market rout and which has led to a shake-up at the bank's top management. (See "Shake-Up At Citicorp.")
Reports say that under the plan being discussed the bank would create a superSIV conduit, backed by the other participating banks and to act as a buyer of last resort.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...QnmRI&refer=us
Citigroup, Bank of America Lead Banks Creating Fund (Update2)
By Mark Pittman and Elizabeth Hester
More Photos/Details
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. will announce as soon as tomorrow that they are establishing a fund of about $80 billion aimed at reviving the asset-backed commercial paper market, said people familiar with the plan.
The fund, to which other firms will probably contribute, will buy some assets from structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, the people said. SIVs are units set up by banks, hedge funds and other investors to finance purchases of securities, including corporate bonds and mortgage debt.
The Treasury Department encouraged the banks to work together, and it jump-started the talks with a meeting of Wall Street executives in Washington on Sept. 16, said a person with knowledge of the deliberations. Robert Steel, the Treasury's top domestic finance official, brought the lenders together and prodded the competitors to keep working through the following weeks. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., also made calls.
``Paulson definitely has the cachet to bring everyone to the table, because of his long experience on Wall Street,'' said Joe Mason, associate professor of business at Drexel University in Philadelphia and a former financial economist at the Treasury's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
The fund would help SIVs, which own $320 billion of assets, <h3>avoid selling their holdings at fire-sale prices, further roiling the credit markets.</h3> The sudden increase in borrowing costs for companies and consumers in August threatens to worsen a housing recession that has slowed the pace of economic growth.
|
Quote:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/24/maga...ion=2007082417
....August 24 2007: 5:09 PM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In a clear sign that the credit crunch is still affecting the nation's largest financial institutions, the Federal Reserve agreed this week to bend key banking regulations to help out Citigroup (Charts, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (Charts, Fortune 500), according to documents posted Friday on the Fed's web site.
The Aug. 20 letters from the Fed to Citigroup and Bank of America state that the Fed, which regulates large parts of the U.S. financial system, has agreed to exempt both banks from rules that effectively limit the amount of lending that their federally-insured banks can do with their brokerage affiliates. The exemption, which is temporary, means, for example, that Citigroup's Citibank entity can substantially increase funding to Citigroup Global Markets, its brokerage subsidiary. Citigroup and Bank of America requested the exemptions, according to the letters, to provide liquidity to those holding mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities, and other securities......
....On Wednesday, Citibank and Bank of America said that they and two other banks accessed $500 million in 30-day financing at the discount window. A Citigroup spokesperson declined to comment. Bank of America dismissed the notion that Banc of America Securities is not well positioned to fund operations without help from the federally insured bank. "This is just a technicality to allow us to use our regular channels of business with funds from the Fed's discount window," says Bob Stickler, spokesperson for Bank of America. "We have no current plans to use the discount window beyond the $500 million announced earlier this week."
There is a good chance that other large banks, like J.P. Morgan (Charts, Fortune 500), have been granted similar exemptions. The Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan didn't immediately comment.
<h3>The regulations in question effectively limit a bank's funding exposure to an affiliate to 10% of the bank's capital. But the Fed has allowed Citibank and Bank of America to blow through that level. Citigroup and Bank of America are able to lend up to $25 billion apiece under this exemption, according to the Fed. If Citibank used the full amount, "that represents about 30% of Citibank's total regulatory capital, which is no small exemption,"</h3> says Charlie Peabody, banks analyst at Portales Partners.
The Fed says that it made the exemption in the public interest, because it allows Citibank to get liquidity to the brokerage in "the most rapid and cost-effective manner possible."
So, how serious is this rule-bending? Very. One of the central tenets of banking regulation is that banks with federally insured deposits should never be over-exposed to brokerage subsidiaries; indeed, for decades financial institutions were legally required to keep the two units completely separate. This move by the Fed eats away at the principle.
Sure, the temporary nature of the move makes it look slightly less serious, but the Fed didn't give a date in the letter for when this exemption will end. In addition, the sheer size of the potential lending capacity at Citigroup and Bank of America - $25 billion each - is a cause for unease.
Indeed, this move to exempt Citigroup casts a whole new light on the discount window borrowing that was revealed earlier this week. At the time, the gloss put on the discount window advances was that they were orderly and almost symbolic in nature. But if that were the case, why the need to use these exemptions to rush the funds to the brokerages?
Subprime may be hitting credit cards, too
Expect the discount window borrowings to become a key part of the Fed's recovery strategy for the financial system. The Fed's exemption will almost certainly force its regulatory arm to sharpen its oversight of banks' balance sheets, which means banks will almost certainly have to mark down asset values to appropriate levels a lot faster now. That's because there is no way that the Fed is going to allow easier funding to lead to a further propping up of asset prices.
Don't forget: The Federal Reserve is in crisis management at the moment. However, it doesn't want to show any signs of panic. That means no rushed cuts in interest rates. It also means that it wants banks to quickly take the big charges that will inevitably come from holding toxic debt securities. And it will do all it can behind the scenes to work with the banks to help them get through this upheaval. But waiving one of the most important banking regulations can only add nervousness to the market. And that's what the Fed did Monday in these disturbing letters to the nation's two largest banks. Top of page....
|
Quote:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/09/news...ion=2007100914
Minutes from the Federal Reserve meeting
Following are the minutes from the Federal Reserve meeting held September 18.
October 9 2007: 2:29 PM EDT
....On August 10, the Federal Reserve issued a statement announcing that it was providing liquidity to facilitate the orderly functioning of financial markets. The Federal Reserve indicated that it would provide reserves as necessary through open market operations to promote trading in the federal funds market at rates close to the target rate of 5-1/4 percent. The Federal Reserve also noted that the discount window was available as a source of funding.
On August 17, the FOMC issued a statement noting that financial market conditions had deteriorated and that tighter credit conditions and increased uncertainty had the potential to restrain economic growth going forward. The FOMC judged that the downside risks to growth had increased appreciably, indicated that it was monitoring the situation, and stated that it was prepared to act as needed to mitigate the adverse effects on the economy arising from the disruptions in financial markets.
Simultaneously, the Federal Reserve Board announced that, to promote the restoration of orderly conditions in financial markets, it had approved a 50 basis point reduction in the primary credit rate to 5-3/4 percent.
The Board also announced a change to the Reserve Banks' usual practices to allow the provision of term financing for as long as thirty days, renewable by the borrower. <h3>In addition, the Board noted that the Federal Reserve would continue to accept a broad range of collateral for discount window loans, including home mortgages and related assets, while maintaining existing collateral margins.</h3>
On August 21, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced some temporary changes to the terms and conditions of the SOMA securities lending program, including a reduction in the minimum fee. The effective federal funds rate was somewhat below the target rate for a time over the intermeeting period, as efforts to keep the funds rate near the target were hampered by technical factors and financial market volatility. In the days leading up to the FOMC meeting, however, the funds rate traded closer to the target.
Short-term financial markets came under pressure over the intermeeting period amid heightened investor unease about exposures to subprime mortgages and to structured credit products more generally.
Rates on asset-backed commercial paper and on low-rated unsecured commercial paper soared, and some issuers, particularly asset-backed commercial paper programs with investments in subprime mortgages, found it difficult to roll over maturing paper. These developments led several programs to draw on backup lines, exercise options to extend the maturity of outstanding paper, or even default. As a result, asset-backed commercial paper outstanding contracted substantially. ......
|
Quote:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/2...ard.html#links
...Oh, remember our friend in the ABX? One of those things that has blown the shit out of the markets before...... How's this look?
Thirty-four? THIRTY FOUR CENTS ON THE DOLLAR?!
And "A" credit?
FIFTY FIVE CENTS? Remember, this recovered big on the rate cuts..... that didn't last long did it?
Something to think about....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Al8&refer=home
Subprime Delinquencies Accelerating, Moody's Says (Correct)
By Shannon D. Harrington and Mark Pittman
Oct. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Subprime mortgage bonds created in the first half of 2007 contain loans that are going delinquent at the fastest rate ever, according to Moody's Investors Service.
....ABX Indexes
Many of the loans that investors shunned in 2006 were able to be successfully securitized in 2007 because of the limited availability of new loans to purchase, according to Andrew Chow, who manages about $7 billion in asset-backed bonds and mortgage securities at SCM Advisors LLC in San Francisco.
``It's not surprising that the performance of that type of loan is in fact even worse than the average of 2006 because these are the loans that were rejected from those deals,'' Chow said.
Subprime mortgages are given to borrowers with poor credit or high debt. The rise in loan defaults and foreclosure followed a period of lax lending standards by the banks making the loans and little due diligence by investors buying the repackaged debt.
The perceived risk of owning subprime mortgage bonds created in the first half of 2007 rose today, according to traders of ABX indexes of credit-default swaps.
The ABX index linked to 20 securities from the first half and given the lowest rating of BBB- fell 2.5 percent to 36.67, the lowest since the index began trading in July, according to, Markit Group Inc., the index administrator. The index rated AA, the second-highest rating, fell 0.93 percent to 87, London-based Markit's composite prices show.
ABX contracts allow investors to speculate on or hedge against the risk the underlying securities aren't repaid as expected. .....
|
....Even as the Federal Reserve risks the solvency of the FDIC insurance on the bank deposits of average Americans, to protect the largest US banks by allowing them to lend up to 30 percent of their reserves (Instead of the ten percent cap that exists to lower risk to the FDIC deposti insurance fund...) to the largest banks own brokerage subsidiaries....and accepts the unmarketable (because they cannot be sold in the REAL markets....except at a large loss...) Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) as collateral on loans from the Fed Discount Window, the Fed and US Treasury and SEC have propped up the stock market to the point that the DOW and S&P indexes are at artifical, record highs....
...<h3>...and back in the "real world":</h3>
Quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...anA&refer=home
Housing Starts May Drop to 12-Year Low: U.S. Economy Preview
By Shobhana Chandra
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Builders in the U.S. broke ground in September on the fewest houses in 12 years, giving the Federal Reserve reason to be more concerned about economic growth than inflation, government reports this week may show.
Housing starts fell 3.6 percent to an annual rate of 1.285 million, according to the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News ahead of the Commerce Department's Oct. 17 report. Consumer prices rose 0.2 percent after dropping in August, Labor Department figures the same day may show.
Higher mortgage costs and stricter lending rules will further depress home sales, worsening the slump in residential construction that threatens to end the expansion. The Fed will lower interest rates again this year as the pall cast by housing outweighs the risk that inflation will accelerate, economists said.
``The next batch of housing data is likely to be extremely soft,'' said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities in New York. ``The Fed's forward-looking approach makes it more inclined to cut rates.''
The construction report may show permits, an indicator of future building, dropped to a 1.29 million annual pace, also a 12-year low.
An Oct. 16 report will reinforce the view that the outlook for housing has dimmed. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo index of homebuilder sentiment probably dropped to a record low of 19 in September from 20 the prior month, according to the survey median. Figures lower than 50 mean most respondents view conditions as poor.
Builder Woes
Centex Corp., the fourth-largest U.S. homebuilder, said Oct. 12 it will take a $1 billion charge on property and will generate less cash from sales than forecast.
``These adjustments reflect the market's further deterioration over the quarter and the significant effects of the mortgage-market disruptions,'' Chief Executive Officer Timothy Eller said in a statement. ....
|
<h3>...anecdotally....no houses have sold in the South San Jose, CA market in the last 70 days:</h3>
Quote:
http://www.southsanjose.com/realtrend.php
.........new listingd ..sales
2006 / Oct ....448 .....272
2006 / Sep ....474 .....293
2006 / Aug ....562 .....371
2007 / Oct .... 156 .....0
2007 / Sep .... 382 ....0
2007 / Aug .....610 ....0
2007 / Jul .....560 ....57
|
Last edited by host; 10-14-2007 at 07:49 PM..
|