<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Word of the Day: Biflation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html</link>
	<description>Southern California is Experiencing a Real Estate Bubble like never before</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 01:16:46 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Ponzi</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94236</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Ponzi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94236</guid>
		<description>Those recast dates were calculated before we jammed the ZIRP pedal.  They will be delayed based on changes in LIBOR.  In addition, default and reposession take between 6 and 24 months.

It&#039;s not an exact science, as you can see, but it&#039;s still coming.

Chuck</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those recast dates were calculated before we jammed the ZIRP pedal.  They will be delayed based on changes in LIBOR.  In addition, default and reposession take between 6 and 24 months.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not an exact science, as you can see, but it&#8217;s still coming.</p>
<p>Chuck</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Allen</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94235</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Allen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94235</guid>
		<description>Thanks to the losses seen thus far which accelerated the resets, havent we already hit the neg-am peak?

http://piggington.com/revised_alta_reset_chart_due_to_pay_option_arms</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks to the losses seen thus far which accelerated the resets, havent we already hit the neg-am peak?</p>
<p><a href="http://piggington.com/revised_alta_reset_chart_due_to_pay_option_arms" rel="nofollow">http://piggington.com/revised_.....ption_arms</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Ponzi</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94234</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Ponzi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:56:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94234</guid>
		<description>Chax,

I understand what you&#039;re trying to say, basically that perhaps these loans have already defaulted and are no longer in the queue to clear out.

There have been no reports that corroborate that stance, and no clear evidence has been presented that that&#039;s the case.

I very much doubt that we have seen even a significant population of neg-am arms come through yet.  Because of the amortization schedules, most won&#039;t begin to recast until mid 2010, and not peak until 2011 or 12 due to the current low-rates.

However, once they do recast, they have very high severity losses and the as obvious, the default rates are worse than subprime.  In California coastal, Neg-am products were chosen nearly 2 to 1 over subprime.  If you include alt-a, they are significantly higher.  

Chuck</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chax,</p>
<p>I understand what you&#8217;re trying to say, basically that perhaps these loans have already defaulted and are no longer in the queue to clear out.</p>
<p>There have been no reports that corroborate that stance, and no clear evidence has been presented that that&#8217;s the case.</p>
<p>I very much doubt that we have seen even a significant population of neg-am arms come through yet.  Because of the amortization schedules, most won&#8217;t begin to recast until mid 2010, and not peak until 2011 or 12 due to the current low-rates.</p>
<p>However, once they do recast, they have very high severity losses and the as obvious, the default rates are worse than subprime.  In California coastal, Neg-am products were chosen nearly 2 to 1 over subprime.  If you include alt-a, they are significantly higher.  </p>
<p>Chuck</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chax</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94233</link>
		<dc:creator>Chax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94233</guid>
		<description>Sorry - im an idiot.  My math is bad.  Try this:

Say we had 200,000 loans in a pool. At the time 74,000 are in default – thus 37%.

Say further that thanks to an ocean of foreclosures thus far, the pool shrinks from 200,000 to 100,000. Of these remaining 100,000, 40,000 are in default – thus 40%

So on the face, we went from 37% to 40%, making you assume it was worse – only to find out the number of foreclosures slipped from 74,000 to 40,000.  Even worse, the potential fuel for the 2nd tsunami went from 200,000 to 100,000.

Not saying this is what is happening. Its just the problem with looking at percentages only.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry &#8211; im an idiot.  My math is bad.  Try this:</p>
<p>Say we had 200,000 loans in a pool. At the time 74,000 are in default – thus 37%.</p>
<p>Say further that thanks to an ocean of foreclosures thus far, the pool shrinks from 200,000 to 100,000. Of these remaining 100,000, 40,000 are in default – thus 40%</p>
<p>So on the face, we went from 37% to 40%, making you assume it was worse – only to find out the number of foreclosures slipped from 74,000 to 40,000.  Even worse, the potential fuel for the 2nd tsunami went from 200,000 to 100,000.</p>
<p>Not saying this is what is happening. Its just the problem with looking at percentages only.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chax</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94232</link>
		<dc:creator>Chax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94232</guid>
		<description>&quot;Currently 40% of all OA borrowers are in default... up from 37% I read some time ago&quot;

OK but what does that mean in numerical terms?

Say we had 100,000 loans in a pool.  At the time 37,000 are in default - thus 37%.

Say further that thanks to foreclosures, the pool shrinks from 100,000 to 80,000.  Of these 80,000, 20,000 are in default - thus 40%.

So on the face, we went from 37% to 40%, making you assume it was worse - only to find out the number slipped from 37,000 to 20,000

Not saying this is what is happening.  Its just the problem with looking at percentages only.  

Chuck - I think the key issue is the number not necessarily the percentage.

Say 200,000 option arms were issued (2002-2007) with say 100,000 of them to reset 2009-2011.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Currently 40% of all OA borrowers are in default&#8230; up from 37% I read some time ago&#8221;</p>
<p>OK but what does that mean in numerical terms?</p>
<p>Say we had 100,000 loans in a pool.  At the time 37,000 are in default &#8211; thus 37%.</p>
<p>Say further that thanks to foreclosures, the pool shrinks from 100,000 to 80,000.  Of these 80,000, 20,000 are in default &#8211; thus 40%.</p>
<p>So on the face, we went from 37% to 40%, making you assume it was worse &#8211; only to find out the number slipped from 37,000 to 20,000</p>
<p>Not saying this is what is happening.  Its just the problem with looking at percentages only.  </p>
<p>Chuck &#8211; I think the key issue is the number not necessarily the percentage.</p>
<p>Say 200,000 option arms were issued (2002-2007) with say 100,000 of them to reset 2009-2011.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Ponzi</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94231</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Ponzi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:43:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94231</guid>
		<description>more recent information refutes that theory:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/moodys-option-arms-show-dismal.html

Currently 40% of all OA borrowers are in default (meaning not yet foreclosed on)

54% of all currently open OAs are in California.  That&#039;s up from the 37% I read some time ago.

That could mean several things, but the most likely is that the problem is getting WORSE (as expected) and not better (as not expected).

Chuck</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>more recent information refutes that theory:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/moodys-option-arms-show-dismal.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.calculatedriskblog......ismal.html</a></p>
<p>Currently 40% of all OA borrowers are in default (meaning not yet foreclosed on)</p>
<p>54% of all currently open OAs are in California.  That&#8217;s up from the 37% I read some time ago.</p>
<p>That could mean several things, but the most likely is that the problem is getting WORSE (as expected) and not better (as not expected).</p>
<p>Chuck</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chax</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94230</link>
		<dc:creator>Chax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94230</guid>
		<description>Chuck - read your post a few weeks ago about the 2nd tsunami of REO to come, and the bulls counterarguments.  I post this here because I want to make sure it isnt missed.

There is one counterargument you missed, which I think is relevant.  Specifically, a good number of those Alt-A and Option Arm spikes we saw resetting in the 2009-2011 period went into foreclosure long before they even had a chance to reset.  

Put another way, the reset chart says the 2nd wave is still coming.  Problem is that is a static picture of the problem, circa 2007.  It is now nearly 2010, and much of that 2nd wave is long gone.

At least thats the theory - care to opine?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chuck &#8211; read your post a few weeks ago about the 2nd tsunami of REO to come, and the bulls counterarguments.  I post this here because I want to make sure it isnt missed.</p>
<p>There is one counterargument you missed, which I think is relevant.  Specifically, a good number of those Alt-A and Option Arm spikes we saw resetting in the 2009-2011 period went into foreclosure long before they even had a chance to reset.  </p>
<p>Put another way, the reset chart says the 2nd wave is still coming.  Problem is that is a static picture of the problem, circa 2007.  It is now nearly 2010, and much of that 2nd wave is long gone.</p>
<p>At least thats the theory &#8211; care to opine?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Ponzi</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94227</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Ponzi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94227</guid>
		<description>Or...

Bernanke is Biflational.  He goes both ways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or&#8230;</p>
<p>Bernanke is Biflational.  He goes both ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: W.C. Varones</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94224</link>
		<dc:creator>W.C. Varones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94224</guid>
		<description>Bernanke is biflational.  When he wants flation, he has to buy it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bernanke is biflational.  When he wants flation, he has to buy it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Dawg</title>
		<link>http://www.socalbubble.com/2009/12/word-of-the-day-biflation.html/comment-page-1#comment-94223</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Dawg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socalbubble.com/?p=818#comment-94223</guid>
		<description>Back in the days when you went by another name you surely remember my chant:
Inflation in the things you need.
Deflation in the things you cannot afford.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back in the days when you went by another name you surely remember my chant:<br />
Inflation in the things you need.<br />
Deflation in the things you cannot afford.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

