March 20, 2010     | Register

Bud Burrell's Front and Center

Feb 1

Written by: bburrell
2/1/2009 2:44 PM 

*This is being printed in Arial Black for readers needing assistance.

 

The modern Information Age is impacting every sector of our economy, most particularly including the reporting of economic cycles and their duration (length), along with the manner in which information is processed.

 

Academia continues to lag in almost every instance all important changes in fact-based systemic changes, focusing on what has happened, rather than what will happen, and how it will come about.

 

One system this elemental change has not impacted positively is our legal system, bending under their continuing overload, and radically resistance to both change and modernization.  If anything, they are trying to slow down our legal processes, acting with less and less transparency.

 

The naked shorting scandals in all securities are painful and incredibly accurate demonstrations of this.  People have known for decades that the counterfeiting of securities in all forms coupled with unenforced settlements of trades had negatively impacted every form of pricing of all securities and derivatives across the board.  Denial (and I am NOT talking about a river in Egypt) has become a crutch used by the manipulators and their mouthpieces,  creating a form of logic that now says the “science of knowledge” (Epistemology) does not have to be based on facts, particularly if they are “Inconvenient” for the ability of the mainstream populace AND ITS LEADERSHIP to perpetuate myths. 

 

Securities are now priced well in advance of coming moves, based on anticipation of trends predicted by statistics which can easily be manipulated, but which, when once assembled, are almost universally distributed on an instantaneous basis, to a matter of hours or days, when in the past, this kind of information would reach the public with delays of months, and sometimes years.  The impact of this is that the duration of cycles are now dramatically shortened versus their past history, and the volatility of prices (amplitude being the correct word) is magnified. 

 

It is our Government, Legal and Business processes that are not keeping up with the fundamental change in the environment.  They are losing their ability to manipulate, obfuscate, lie, maneuver, protect and otherwise jerk the people of this country around, yet still they come up with new mechanisms to delay the inevitable increases in transparency by every trick they can construct or invent.   The public isn’t as totally blind as it was a decade ago, as every day more Americans and foreigners become more computer literate, allowing them whole new techniques to determine if they are being abused or manipulated.  They want answers, and they won’t tolerate much more horse manure.

 

One great example is failures to deliver Treasuries, with such failures now exceeding $2.5 Trillion according to the New York Federal Reserve Bank.  Only now do they admit they have no penalties for such failures, and they are now trying to put laws in place to punish those who engage in settlement failures by strategic design.  I am afraid that horse is out of the barn, years ago.  If the pattern is followed, they will probably take years to put such rules and laws in place, just at the “changes” (Are you kidding me?) in short sale rules took 7 years to get put in place and then were a total cluster bomb of a failure.

 

In a world where transparency and justice should be obtained more expeditiously and with greater clarity, just the opposite is occurring.  The outcome is that the American people don’t trust our investment systems, or our Government.   Their loss of faith is as profound as that which accompanied the Great Depression.  How many times do professionals have to be told that investor confidence as reflected in the indices was not restored after the 1929 Raid until 1954? 

 

We face a disastrous job crisis, one that can only be solved by creating jobs, which means focusing our finite and limited capital on those efforts that will stimulate the economy, restore investors confidence in small business, fund credit for all businesses, and more.  We are in a War as serious and deadly as any shooting War.  When a society must wage War, it cannot do it in half measures, nor can it have any focus other than winning that War.  Any agenda that doesn’t recognize this is going to not only fail, but threatens our civilization.  What is dumbfounding is that many leaders think that our GNP and the taxes it produces happen magically, and not from the sweat of risk takers. 

 

Some 80% of all small business funding involved an individual using his credit cards to start his business.   Typically, this level of entrepreneur knows two-thirds of such efforts fail.  So why do they do it, and who deserves to benefit?  I say the benefit must go first to the risk takers and his employees, and what is left over should go to the Government for key safety net, not control, functions.  If the small businesses fail, no earning or wealth are created and no taxes get paid, and the Government falls apart, wrecking our currency in the process where they have engaged their own self-serving Ponzi schemes. 

 

Many of us were brought together by the crisis of confidence attending the criminal manipulation of stock prices by a form of vicious counterfeiting we have come to call “Naked Short Selling”.  Counterfeiting, both illegal and legal, now threatens our very existence.  I get hints of our economy fighting back, such as a small bottom in Real Estate prices where I live, which are now down over 33% in 18 months, but I fear this is but a pause.  The first hard support of real estate prices is the replacement cost of the properties.  We are nowhere near there yet.  This augurs for this form of cycle to be much longer that four years.

 

A final comment on the indices.  They are currently set based on values tied to estimates of 12 times earnings per share.   This isn’t even close to a historical bottom, which in 1934 was 6 times.  Anyone thinking a Dow of 8000 is the hard floor are simply not professional.  Data talks.  If anyone can tell me why I should expect earnings in this kind of hard contraction should support such a valuation, they know something I don’t.  There is talk of the current Administration creating a 4% long term mortgage for qualified borrowers.  While that is good news, I think it is folly to think that alone will create firm support for real estate prices.  Nothing but good jobs coming back on a big scale (20 Million or more) will do that.   So how would you achieve that goal?

Copyright ©2009 Bud Burrell

Tags:

4 comment(s) so far...

Re: The Impact of the Information Age on our Current Environment

Bud,

As a real estate and mortgage broker, as much as I'd love to see a 4% mortgage, we don't need it.

The problem is people bought in 2004-2007 and got 100% believing that in a couple of years their houses would appreciate and they could then re-finance 100% of what they owed at an 80% LTV rate. For those who bought early enough, it worked like a charm. But for those who didn't, when they went to refi their appraisals had gone down instead of up. Many of these people made business decisions to walk away from a house rather than pay more than it was now worth. And many others (like my children) are hanging in there, paying high rates on houses where they are upside down. When they ask for a rate reduction they get laughed at. Lenders often won't talk to you until you miss three payments.

Solutions: we need a government backed MI that would allow someone to finance whatever they owe (130% LTV) on a property at the current conventional rates. If these homeowners have been making their payments on higher interest loans, they are good risks and should not be punished. Foreclosure problems all but solved.

Second, we need to get those who have been foreclosed back into the housing market. Just becasue someone wasn't a good buyer at $350K and 9% interest doesn't mean they aren't a great buyer for $275K at 5.5%. If Fannie/Freddie would allow a credit scoring that didn't count the foreclosure (which, as I pointed out, was sometimes a sound business decision and not an inabilitiy to pay) we could do it. It would require some type of non-traditional credit scoring (i.e., labor intensive), but again, it would get buyers back into the market.

And that is the biggest thing we need to stabalixe everything in the country right now (next to regulating wall street and hanging a few NSSers).

I'd love to read your comments.

Bill

Reply: I agree with all your observations. I would say that the Sub-Prime crisis was brought to bear by the ill-conceived Community Reinvestment Act, as pushed by Alinsky principles by ACORN.

What Clinton did, and Bush did nothing to correct, was to allow wholesale origination fraud in mortgages for unqualified borrowers. Had anyone exercised any prudency, this could not have happened. Instead, the USG stepped in and told the States THEY HAD NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to interfere with the originators generating this garbage paper.

These officials should be publicly humiliated, then jailed, making them convicted felons. This is one of the really disgraceful chapters in American history where the conduct of a small number of arrogant miscreants has wrecked everything for the rest of the entire population. Yet you hear no one word about finding those responsible. Thanks for your comment.

By bgroover on   2/10/2009 9:00 AM

Re: The Impact of the Information Age on our Current Environment

Please explain something to me. If 5% of mortgages are in foreclosure, why is the government having to give my tax money to the bankers to bail them out because of their “losses?”

If 5% are in foreclosure, then 95% aren’t, and are making money. Of the 5% in foreclosure, the houses can sell and cover 60% to 95% of the losses. So even if the banks lost 50% on 5% of their loans, with 95% still making money, I’m not seeing why they are crying. If 95% of my investments broke even last year and I lost 100% of 5%, I’d be pretty happy right now.

But of the 5% of mortgages that are “behind,” only 2.8% are actually in foreclosure. The other 2.2% are racking up late fees. So the lenders are losing no more than 40% on 2.8% of their investments, not subtracting what they made before the loans went into default.

Most of the foreclosures are on “high risk” mortgages. And the higher the risk, the higher the interest rate. So the banks were making money, big money, on most of the mortgages that are in foreclosure. And, as noted, are making money on the 95% (or 97.2%) not in foreclosure. If they were making 9% and more for a couple of years (which there were on many of these high risk/high LTV loans), then foreclosed and sold at a 20% loss, wouldn’t that pretty much be breaking even?

Two of the most important laws of investing are:

1, Don’t invest money you can’t afford to lose.
2. The higher the risk, the higher the potential reward.

So we are bailing out investors who knew the stakes, gambled, and were quite happy to take every penny of profit during the years of the sub-prime boom, but now that they aren’t making as much as they were, are crying for us to give them more money to cover their “losses,” which are actually more accounting maneuvers than anything.

They caused the crisis; they profited off the boom; now they are profiting off the losses.

And Congress wanst me to give them my tax dollars? The only thing I can figure out is our representatives in Congress figure they're going to get more "campaign contributions" from the CITIs and Merril Lynches than from us taxpayers.


Reply: 6% of all mortgages were made to NINJA borrowers. Half of those are in foreclosure, 25% are in default or arrears, and eventually, 2/3 will foreclose. The balance of recorded loans are about $12 Trillion. 10% of that number will go in arrears in the next twelve months, and within 6 months after that, 50% will go to foreclosure if there is no mortgage bailout, cutting not only rates, but principal balances.

The trick is how do you reward the failures, and not reward those who didn't screw up?

I am a free market advocate. Where was this bailut talk/action for the 14 western states after the Tax Rape Act of 1986? They let them and their banks go to hell. Obama's talk is utter hypocrisy, socialist clap-trap.

By bgroover on   2/10/2009 2:56 PM

Re: The Impact of the Information Age on our Current Environment

While I've got little to no sympathy for either the investors or the Buyers who walked away, I do have sympathy for the Buyers who have hung in there. They are the most deserving of the help. But for a fraction of the money Congress is talking about, you could help both classes of Buyers. That would reduce the number of foreclosures and inject millions of Buyers back into the housing market, thus likely turning the current decline in values back to a modest rate of appreciation.

As for other forms of bailout, I, too, am a free market advocate. Our whole system of capatilism is bases on risk and reward. And at the end of the day, bailouts reduce risk. I'm just afraid what will happen to the whole system if we upset the basic paradigm upon which everything works pretty well most of the time (at least, has gotten us where we are in terms of being so prosperous--even in the midst of recession). Like you say, it's a step toward socialism at best.

But about which Obama are you talking? The one who last week said he was going to be more "forward looking" and not investigage the Bush administration, or the Obama's whose Justice Dept announced yesterday they are going to investigate every reported alleged abuse/illegal action?

Thanks,

Bill

Reply: Obama is a lawyer, an Acorn supporter, a leftist/socialist, and a Chicago Democratic Machine Politician. If he is breathing, he is lying.

By bgroover on   2/11/2009 10:07 AM

Re: The Impact of the Information Age on our Current Environment

Bud, it's not like you to be so ambiguous. Tell me what you really think about him.

I've enjoyed the exchange, and as always, all your hard work and personal sacrifices and risk on behalf of investment victims like myself (an EATC stock holder).

Bill

Reply: I won't be making him a beneficiary of my life insurance.

By bgroover on   2/11/2009 12:02 PM
Copyright © 2006-2009 The Sanity Check   |   Privacy Statement   |   Terms Of Use