Google
 

Friday, October 10, 2008

We Are Facing an 'Inflation Holocaust': Jim Rogers

Markets do not trust the governments' plans to keep struggling banks alive and investors will only calm down when the companies with bad assets are allowed to go bankrupt, legendary investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC on Friday.
"The way to solve this problem is to let people go bankrupt," Rogers said.
"Then you will hit bottom and then you start over. The people who are sound will take over the assets from the people who aren't sound and we will start over. This is the way the world has worked for a few thousand years."
The current rescue plans, which will force governments to issue more debt, print money and flood the markets with liquidity, will flare up inflation after the crisis is over and will create worse problems, Rogers warned.
"We're setting the stage for when we come out of this of a massive inflation holocaust," he said.
And the plans are unlikely to fend off a severe economic downturn, as the crisis starts affecting all walks of life.
"We had the worst excesses we had in credit markets in world history. We're going to have to take some pain," Rogers said.

Watch the interview and read the rest here

Add to Onlywire

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Use Put Options to Capitalize on Market Falls

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=884256885

The Zero Dollar - Is this what we have to look forward to?









Artist Laura Gilberts' print 'The Zero Dollar' protesting the breakdown of the American economy. Gilbert distributed 10,000 of the fake greenbacks in front of the New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008 to call attention to the economic crisis gripping the nation.








Wednesday, October 8, 2008

I'm Baaaackkk!

Hi All!

I've been away for awhile taking advantage of this crazy market. I will be sharing with you what investment strategies and methods I've been using to profit from this market downturn. I've been posting and talking about this upcoming crisis...opps, I mean the one we are current in since I first started this blog. It's still early and there are things that we must play close attention to if we wish to first secure our investments and 2nd, to maximize the our profit in this...one-in-a-generation event.

Harry

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Fed endorses home mortgage plan



WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve moved Tuesday to protect home buyers from dubious lending practices, its most sweeping response to a mortgage meltdown that has forced record numbers of people from their homes.

The Fed has been under attack for not doing more to stem the crisis as hundreds of thousands of people lost the roof over their head. The situation raised the odds the country will fall into recession, unhinged Wall Street, racked up multibillion losses for financial companies and resulted in political finger-pointing over who was to blame.

The proposed rules, endorsed by the Federal Reserve Board in a 5-0 vote, would crack down on a range of shady lending practices that has burned many of the nation's riskiest "subprime" borrowers — those with spotty credit or low incomes — who have been hardest hit by the housing and credit debacles. The rules also would curtail misleading ads for many types of mortgages and bolster financial disclosures to borrowers.


"Unfair and deceptive acts and practices hurt not just borrowers and their families, but entire communities, and indeed, the economy as a whole. They have no place in our mortgage system," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said. "We want consumers to make decisions about home mortgage options confidently, with assurance that unscrupulous home mortgage practices will not be tolerated," he said.


If ultimately adopted, the plan would apply to new loans made by thousands of lenders of all types, including banks and brokers. It would not cover loans already made.


The proposal would restrict lenders from penalizing risky borrowers who pay loans off early, require lenders to make sure these borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance and bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower's income. It also would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower's ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home's value.


The plan disappointed both supporters and opponents of tougher home-lending regulations.


Mortgage lenders worried that the Fed plan was too tough and could crimp customers' choices. "We worry that some of the product restrictions could make it harder for bankers to tailor products for their customers and communities and result in some creditworthy customers not being able to obtain a loan," said Edward Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association.


Consumer groups and Democrats in Congress complained that the proposal doesn't provide sufficiently strong safeguards for borrowers.


"The Fed has done too little, too late," said Kathleen Day, spokeswoman for the Center for Responsible Lending, a group that promotes homeownership and works to curb predatory lending. "We don't think it is strong enough to protect people in the future and does nothing to help people left holding the bag now," she said.


Consumer advocates wanted an outright ban on prepayment penalties. These penalties, they say, deter homeowners from refinancing on more favorable terms. The penalties can be hard on borrowers who want to get out of adjustable-rate mortgages that reset from a low introductory rate to a much higher one they have trouble paying off. However, mortgage industry representatives argued that prepayment penalties ensure that lenders receive a minimum return if loans are paid off early, and can provide borrowers with a benefit of lower upfront costs or lower interest rates.


Another disappointment to consumer groups: to make a case for a possible violation, the lender has to have engaged in a pattern of making loans without considering the borrowers' ability to repay. An individual incident would not be sufficient by itself.


"We are pleased the Fed recognized the critical issues that have caused the foreclosure crisis. Unfortunately, the proposal fell short of the mark," said Allen Fishbein, the Consumer Federation of America's point person on housing and credit policies.


Before taking effect, the public, industry and others can weigh in. The Fed will then vote again, and the rules could be revised.


The proposal offers Bernanke, who took over the helm in February 2006, an important opportunity to put his imprint on the Fed's regulatory powers. Some critics have complained that Bernanke's predecessor — Alan Greenspan, who ran the Fed for 18 1/2 years — failed to act as a forceful regulator especially during the 2001-2005 housing boom, when easy credit spurred lots of subprime home loans and many exotic types of mortgages.


When the housing market went bust, subprime loans were most heavily affected.


Of the nearly 3 million subprime adjustable-rate loans surveyed by the Mortgage Bankers Association from July through September, a record 4.72 percent entered the foreclosure process during those months. At the same time, a record 18.81 percent of the subprime adjustable-rate loans were past due.


When home values weakened, borrowers were left with loan balances that eclipsed the value of their homes. They also were clobbered when their loans reset with much higher interest rates.


The House has passed legislation that would put into law some tougher provisions than contemplated by the Fed. A similar bill is pending in the Senate.


Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and contender for his party's presidential nomination, called the Fed proposal a "significant step backwards." Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said it shows that the Fed is "not a strong advocate for consumers, and two, there is no Santa Claus. People who are surprised by the one are presumably surprised by the other."


For both risky and not-so-risky borrowers, the Fed also proposed:


• Prohibiting certain types of misleading or deceptive advertising for home mortgages. For instance, it would bar using the term "fixed" to describe a rate that is not truly fixed over the life of the entire loan. It also would require that all applicable rates or payments be disclosed in ads with equal prominence as advertised introductory "teaser" rates.


• Require lenders to provide financial disclosures to borrowers early enough for them to use while shopping for a mortgage. Lenders could not charge fees — except for a fee to obtain a credit report — until after the consumer receives the disclosures.


In addition, the Fed proposed barring lenders from paying mortgage brokers a fee that exceeds the amount the would-be borrower had agreed to in advance that the broker would receive.


The Fed also proposed banning certain practices, such as failing to credit a mortgage payment to a borrower's account when the company servicing the mortgage receives it. And it would prohibit a broker or other company from coercing or encouraging an appraiser to misrepresent the value of a home.


___ By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer 1 hour, 16 minutes ago


On the Net:


Federal Reserve: http://www.federalreserve.gov/

Monday, December 17, 2007

Peter Schiff on 'Your World with Cavuto' on the The Housing Bubble

A Real Estate Investor and Peter Schiff Debate the Real Estate Downturn.

Mr. Schiff has a Catastrophist View that many leading economic figures are also now saying is a stonger possibility due to the real estate and subprime crisis.

Imagining Recession

The world’s housing, oil, and stock markets have been plunged into turmoil in recent months. Yet consumer confidence, capital expenditure, and hiring have yet to take a sharp hit. Why?

Ultimately, consumer and business confidence are mostly irrational. The psychology of the markets is dominated by the public images that we have in mind from day to day, and that form the basis of our imaginations and of the stories we tell each other.

Popular images of past disasters are part of our folklore, often buried in the dim reaches of our memory, but re-emerging to trouble us from time to time. Like traditional myths, such graphic, shared images embody fears that are deeply entrenched in our psyche. The images that have accompanied past episodes of market turmoil are largely absent today.

Consider the oil crisis that began in November 1973, resulting in a world stock market crash and a sharp world recession. Vivid images have stuck in people’s minds from that episode: long lines of cars at gas stations, people riding bicycles to work, gasless Sundays and other rationing schemes.

Today, the real price of oil is nearly twice as high as it was at the peak of that crisis, but we have seen nothing like the images from 1973-5. Mostly we are not even reminded of them. So our confidence is not shaken, yet.

Just before the October 19, 1987, stock market crash, the biggest one-day drop in history, the image on people’s minds was the crash of 1929. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal ran a story about it on the morning of the 1987 crash. I know that those images contributed to the severity of the 1987 crash by encouraging people to sell, because I ran a survey of individual and institutional investors the following week.

Images of 1929 – of financiers leaping from buildings, unemployed men sleeping on park benches, long lines at soup kitchens, and impoverished boys selling apples on the street – are not on our minds now. The 1929 crash just does not seem relevant to most people today, probably because we survived the 1987 and 2000 crashes with few ill effects, while 1929 seems not only the distant past, but another world.

But images of the 1987 crash, driven by computers in tall modern steel-and-glass office buildings, do seem to be on people’s minds today. The stock market suffered one of its biggest one-day drops this year on the 20th anniversary of the 1987 crash, with the S&P 500 falling 2.56%. No previous anniversary of the 1987 crash showed any such drop.

The image of a bank run, of long lines of angry people lining up outside a failed bank, was briefly on our minds after the Northern Rock failure in Britain. But the Bank of England’s direct intervention prevented these images from gaining a foothold on our collective psychology.

The images that are uppermost in our minds are of a housing crisis. We imagine residential streets with one “for sale” sign after another. Worse, there are images of foreclosures, of families being evicted from their homes, their furniture and belongings on the street.

If home prices continue to decline in the United States and possibly elsewhere, there could be many more vivid images. You may yet be presented with the image of your child’s playmate moving away because his parents were thrown out in a foreclosure. You may see a house down the street trashed by an angry owner who was foreclosed. Such images become part of your sense of reality, and could disturb your sense of confidence and reduce your willingness to spend and support the economy.

Could such changes in psychology be big enough to tip us into a world recession? While it is far from clear that they will, it is a possibility. Psychology need only change enough to bring about a drop in consumption or investment growth of a percentage point or so of world GDP, and market repercussions can do the rest.

Source HERE

Robert J. Shiller is Professor of Economics at Yale University, Chief Economist at MacroMarkets LLC, which he co-founded (see macromarkets.com), and author of Irrational Exuberance and The New Financial Order: Risk in the 21st Century.