Chuck Ponzi August 5th, 2008

Now that the housing bailout bill has been approved by congress and signed into law by the political pandering president, we have all agreed to accept the cold hard reality of covering someone else’s bad decisions and poor choices with our own hard work, sweat, and good choices. Indeed, it seems that excelling or even being of a marginally higher intellect than say, a brain slug is fit to be yoked and saddled with someone else’s mediocrity in this new era of America. It is the future of “no child left behind”, or as Brett Arends of the Wall Street Journal puts it, the Condo Flippers Do Over Act.

I remember a story that I read in grade school, Anthem by Ayn Rand. It was the first Ayn Rand book I ever read, and the only one I enjoyed. But, even in my youth, the message was chilling. The story was one of a man with extraordinary talent and physical prowess who lived in a society that believed in equality to an extreme. This society would place handicaps on those who could could see well, think better, or even walk better to the point that noone was better than anyone else in any way. Ironically, the main character I never in my life imagined that this kind of society would exist, much less under a republican president. However, it seems we have become this society:

Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said: “There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers.” But we cannot change our bones nor our body.

I have no flair for the dramatic, but I fear that we as a nation have allowed ourselves to become enslaved by our own political masters. We are therefore, destined for failure much more than if we had celebrated success AND failure as a means of building again something better. In our society, failure is only to include everyone, and everyone fails or succeeds together. It seems like only a little time ago that we were introducing “participation awards”, and now we are covering everyone’s losses. Except it seems that there is a conspiracy afoot.

I’m a died in the wool libertarian, but there is only so much nepotism that I can stand. I am disgusted beyond belief at what I see. What I see is that the only time that people are bailed out is when it affects big business. When the banks collectively went and did the stupidest stuff in the history of the world in the name of “financial innovation”, they get bailed out. When little investors went and did stupid stuff by buying dot coms… not a chance.

I’m mad as hell, but I don’t know what to do. In elections, I get to choose between a giant douche and a shit sandwich. Equally, everyone around me is too busy getting raped by the government to give a rat’s ass. The only thoughts that come to mind are treasonous and illegal, so I won’t write them down, but, I have to ask, at what point do politicians become responsible for their actions? Is it only when we get invaded and conquered do crimes against humanity get punished?

Unfortunately, with all of the absolutely stupid shite that happens in this country, I can’t think of a country where even more stupid shite happens, so there’s no escape. Maybe this is just what being middle class is all about. I’m too lucky to have the government wipe my butt for me, and I’m not lucky enough to not give a rip or find a way around paying for it. So, I’m stuck working for the government 50% of my income going to taxes and no say in the political process. Makes me want to stop paying taxes altogether. If I thought I could get away with it, I would.

I have to say, this housing bill, what a crock of absolute rubbish, and I’m ashamed to live in a country where politicians pander to everyone but their constituency. Everyone would be much better off if housing were cheap. Everyone complains when the prices of things rise… we call that inflation, but when it’s houses, it’s call an ownership society.

From the WSJ:

Anyone who invests in housing already gets a number of political subsidies. Your mortgage interest can be deducted from your income tax. Your capital gains, up to certain limits, can also be tax free. Taxpayers maintain the roads to and from your home. The new rescue package is just one more subsidy for the asset class of housing.

There was no rescue package for all those honest people who lost their savings in the dotcom crash. And there was no suggestion of any rescue package.

Meanwhile the majority Democratic party is agitating, with plenty of popular support, for a “windfall profits tax” on energy companies.

Such a tax, if it should pass, would by definition lower the returns from investment in oil and gas exploration. Inevitable consequence: Less investment in oil and gas exploration. But this is apparently an acceptable price to pay to ensure that…well, that investors in big energy companies don’t make too much money.

So, where does this all leave us?

Among the many ironies: The current economic crisis is largely the result of too much investment in housing, which led to a bubble and then a collapse, and too little investment in energy, leading to fuel shortages and skyrocketing prices. Yet the political class is acting, as far as I can see, to increase investment still further in housing and reduce investment in energy.

Where do our douche and shit sandwich stand on this?

• Free Speech , Housing Costs , Inflation , Rants , Unintended Consequences
• Comments(15)

Chuck Ponzi May 13th, 2008

There are 2 must-reads for the future of foreclosures:

1. Calculated Risk has a great visual of projected 2008 foreclosures in “1000 Foreclosures per Day in California”

2008 is off the charts. Anyone calling a bottom at this point doesn’t have the facts straight. Notice of Defaults are projected at over 450K based on Q1 data. You may start to see some houses make sense in pricing, but there’s no doubt we’re going to overshoot fair valuation on the way down this time. No doubt at all.

2. The second one is Mr. Mortgage’s videolog and blog where he recieved California Foreclosure stats from Foreclosure Radar 2 days early. You can alternatively read it here
if you cannot access youtube. (at work, anyone?)

Some great excerpts:

we will have approx 122,000 units slamming the CA auctions over the next 4 months.

That’s over 1000 per day. That’s making the 90’s bust look like a walk in the park. However, when one considers that it is likely that more than half of all purchases within the last 3 years were speculative, the toll is likely largely hitting only those who took excessive risk. Boo Hoo.

Remember to visit Angry Renter. Please be sure to check out ways to contact your local representative to voice your opinion against any kind of government intervention. The invisible hand of the market is in the process of sifting the wheat from the chaff.

In California, renters and homeowners with no mortgage outnumber by a wide margin the number of reckless individuals who overextended themselves. Don’t let yourself be duped into inaction. I’ll post more on specifics later.

• Foreclosures , Speculation , Unintended Consequences
• Comments(2)

Chuck Ponzi March 4th, 2008

Rarely does the Chuck Ponzi Law of Unintended Consequences have such colorful supporters being quoted in Bloomberg.  Yesterday, Fed Chief Ben Bernanke suggested in a speech to bankers that the best option might be to reduce loan balances rather than pursuing legal foreclosures.

Remember, I stated:

The other is the physics of a forgiveness. Like Newton’s third law of physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If Banks believe that they can lose up to 20 or 30% of the value of a home, they will begin to require borrowers to “self insure” by raising collateral requirements to mitigate their new risk. They will also likely offset the risk through higher risk spreads translating to substantially higher rates with stricter requirements for credit worthiness.

Bloomberg quoted the following:

We could not imagine that the policy response would be to pour napalm on the fire,” said Julian Mann, who helps manage $3.4 billion of bonds at First Pacific Advisors LLC. “I’m going to demand higher and higher rates” to buy mortgage debt if the collateral is altered, he said.

Go Julian.

BTW, banks will get their pound of flesh one way or the other.  The only thing left is for the government to start making housing payments for people.  I’d like a little of that action.  My rent is breaking me here in OC.  I’d also like to take a heloc out against my rental, go to Hawaii, buy a Hummer like my a-hole neighbor and have it paid off by the other taxpayers too.  Only, I realized that as a renter, I pay higher taxes anyway… D’Oh.

I guess the only logical conclusion left is to revert to anarchy if that happens.  I’ve been looking around for a good MAK90 like I used to have in college.  It’s hard to believe how much they’ve gone up in recent years.  Good ole Chinese manufacturing practices.

• Debt , Lending Standards , Lizard Brain , Unintended Consequences
• Comments(6)

Chuck Ponzi February 22nd, 2008

The Chuck Ponzi Law of Unintended Consequences is alive and in full force. I had to whip it out another time when Congress started considering the subprime rate freezes. And now, it rears it ugly head again and I am forced to once again remind people how “helping” most often ends up just hurting people.

Remember the original rule:

If there is any chance that someone can get bailed out by someone else, they will, and you will have to pay for it from your own pocket.

I had to later add:

while you may need to pay for it, anything other than letting the market deal with it efficiently will likely crash it anyway

This time, I’ll have to add the following:

And messing with it will make it crash harder than if you had just kept your stupid nosy butt out of it.

and that’s how I can frame the message to those reading the MSNBC article about “saving” people from their underwater houses.

The current plan to “save” homedebtors is to “forgive” the amount that borrowers are underwater. Meanwhile, the Jeffrey Birnbaum seems to take the tack that we should be poopooing on the stupid lenders for lending that amount in the first place. Naturally, banks are fighting it. In the short run, this “solution” becomes their problem. Unfortunately, in the long run, it becomes everyone’s problem.

The legislation would allow bankruptcy judges for the first time to alter the terms of mortgages for primary residences. Under the proposal, borrowers could declare bankruptcy, and a judge would be able to reduce the amount they owe as part of resolving their debts.

There are at least 2 significant problems with this solution.

1. There is a moral component to paying back what you owe. It is supremely unfair to prudent citizens when gamblers and speculators are saved from their own poor decisions. But, it goes further than that; this bailout encourages more risk taking and gambling - a term referred to as moral hazard. The fear is that open risk taking can create systemic risk that at some later date cannot be bailed out; the captains must go down with the ship.

2. The other is the physics of a forgiveness. Like Newton’s third law of physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If Banks believe that they can lose up to 20 or 30% of the value of a home, they will begin to require borrowers to “self insure” by raising collateral requirements to mitigate their new risk. They will also likely offset the risk through higher risk spreads translating to substantially higher rates with stricter requirements for credit worthiness.

Consider who this is attempting to help:

The Democrats and their allies see the plan as an antidote to the recent mortgage crisis, especially among low-income borrowers with subprime loans. The legislation would prevent as many as 600,000 homeowners from being thrown into foreclosure, its advocates say.

The poor? Who would least likely be able to handle an increase in the collateral requirements and interest rates set forth for the purchase of a home? My belief is that if this law is passed, it will severely deepen the housing crisis. Indeed, this will likely make the housing problems a super-crisis; akin to raising interest rates in a deflationary environment. This would mean not only that we would be erasing all of the gains of the bubble, but likely much, much more. If first-time buyers were required to save 20% collateral again, it would literally shut down the first-time homebuyers in Southern California. It would not return to the existing levels for perhaps another generation as the system cleanses itself. All of the increased savings would have a positive effect of actual savings, but it would create a severe recession since consumers would need to retrench and cut off discretionary spending. We could easily see homeownership rates erode by 10% or more over the coming decade of turmoil.

This “solution” is quite possibly the worst kind of consequence in itself. It will crash housing markets in high-priced locales and deepen the coming recession throughout the country. I’m a fan of just letting the markets right themselves and sort out the mess itself. Any kind of well intentioned tinkering will only make the problem worse. The time to act is past and cannot be recaptured. The right time to fix the problem was to prevent it in the first place.

Unless the US Government wants to become the lender of last resort (see the discussion of systemic risk) and to personally insure low collateralized mortgages in an inflated market, there is no way this legislation cannot wipe out innovative lending. All of the lending and borrowing participants will have been crowded out by risk aversion.

Let’s hope that our government is aware enough to see what this would do and kill this legislation before it becomes a reality.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no banksters apologist. They are greedy, self-serving, and destructive. Their moral compass is broken and their money guides their actions. Congress, unfortunately are worse. They work with a corrupt moral compass and other people’s money.

Here’s hoping that if Congress can’t pull their heads out of their collective asses that President Bush has enough sense to wield the necessary veto rights. The very civil liberties of property rights must be protected; both for individual citizens and corporations. Once we take it from one class, we can take it from others; it’s only a matter of time before we find a reason to.

• Housing Crash , Lending Standards , Speculation , Unintended Consequences
• Comments(1)