What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back from the brink doesn't mean off the ledge...





;) ;) :cool:

And without passing of health care, we're going right over the edge and we'll have REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION to blame for the fall.

*nods*
 
Here is some real time bad news for the economy without the government filter:


FedEx Lowers Guidance
December 9, 2008 10:21 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)
FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX) lowered its 2009 guidance and promised to cut costs. Analysts promptly downgraded the company and the transportation sector sending the stock price plummeting $10.27 to $64.16.

And here's one year later

FedEx Guidance Helps Lift Futures
Buzz up! 0
Print
Companies:Fedex CorporationHR Block, Inc.The Talbots Inc.
By Ken Sweet , On Tuesday December 8, 2009, 6:15 am EST
Stock futures posted slight gains Tuesday after transportation company FedEx boosted its earnings estimates while oil posted slight gains.

At 6 a.m. in New York, the Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were up 16 points, or 0.15%, to 10,407 while the S&P 500 futures were up 2.2 points to 1,105.90 and the Nasdaq 100 futures were higher by 4 points to 1788.00.

Shares of FedEx were higher by 3.1% in the pre-market session after the parcel and office supply company said it expected to earn $1.10 a share for the fourth quarter, citing lower operational costs and growth in shipping abroad. The boost was significantly higher than the 65-cent to 95-cent range the company had previously forecasted.

The news helped lift FedEx's primarily competitor UPS as well, with its stock up 2.5% in the premarkets.

Wall Street's trading agenda today is somewhat light, with only a few company earnings reports and no economic data. The two most notable companies to report quarterly results are retailer Talbots and tax firm H&R Block .
 
Still no jobs...and not sure when the jobs will come for the average citizen. The bulk of the stock market up tick, I believe was due to all the cost cutting. Inflation has started; we shall see how far it goes. Are we headed back to the Carter years? Purchase a house with an 18% mortgage rate?

And here's one year later

FedEx Guidance Helps Lift Futures
Buzz up! 0
Print
Companies:Fedex CorporationHR Block, Inc.The Talbots Inc.
By Ken Sweet , On Tuesday December 8, 2009, 6:15 am EST
Stock futures posted slight gains Tuesday after transportation company FedEx boosted its earnings estimates while oil posted slight gains.

At 6 a.m. in New York, the Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were up 16 points, or 0.15%, to 10,407 while the S&P 500 futures were up 2.2 points to 1,105.90 and the Nasdaq 100 futures were higher by 4 points to 1788.00.

Shares of FedEx were higher by 3.1% in the pre-market session after the parcel and office supply company said it expected to earn $1.10 a share for the fourth quarter, citing lower operational costs and growth in shipping abroad. The boost was significantly higher than the 65-cent to 95-cent range the company had previously forecasted.

The news helped lift FedEx's primarily competitor UPS as well, with its stock up 2.5% in the premarkets.

Wall Street's trading agenda today is somewhat light, with only a few company earnings reports and no economic data. The two most notable companies to report quarterly results are retailer Talbots and tax firm H&R Block .
 
Still no jobs...and not sure when the jobs will come for the average citizen. The bulk of the stock market up tick, I believe was due to all the cost cutting. Inflation has started; we shall see how far it goes. Are we headed back to the Carter years? Purchase a house with an 18% mortgage rate?

Actually people are getting refinanced at 2%.
 
Still no jobs...and not sure when the jobs will come for the average citizen. The bulk of the stock market up tick, I believe was due to all the cost cutting. Inflation has started; we shall see how far it goes. Are we headed back to the Carter years? Purchase a house with an 18% mortgage rate?

You should have followed the news in 2008 then. The consensus of most economists then, as now, was that jobs would rebound in the second quarter of 2010.
 
... And without passing of health care, we're going right over the edge and we'll have REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION to blame for the fall.

*nods*

I'm all for healthcare and health insurance reform - if it is done to help the US citizens. However, even some Democrats are now saying the bill in its present form should be defeated. Howard Dean, former Democratic National Party Chairperson says, "This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG."

* Back to the original focus of this thread. *
 
Actually people are getting refinanced at 2%.

some yes, a lot no. we still have a glut of foreclosed homes down here, and a lot of poeple underwater. personally i think its nuts people expect a bank to write off 100k just cuz the homeowner is underwater and overpaid.
 
I'm all for healthcare and health insurance reform - if it is done to help the US citizens. However, even some Democrats are now saying the bill in its present form should be defeated. Howard Dean, former Democratic National Party Chairperson says, "This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG."

* Back to the original focus of this thread. *

its not just for US citizens...we the tax payer will still pay for non insured us citizens....no questions asked.
 
some yes, a lot no. we still have a glut of foreclosed homes down here, and a lot of poeple underwater. personally i think its nuts people expect a bank to write off 100k just cuz the homeowner is underwater and overpaid.

However, banks know full well that's the chance they take.

And if no one is buying the foreclosed homes, what alternative is there?

Let all the homes sit and rot? Unoccupied homes still need to be maintained, heated , etc.
 
However, banks know full well that's the chance they take.

And if no one is buying the foreclosed homes, what alternative is there?

Let all the homes sit and rot? Unoccupied homes still need to be maintained, heated , etc.

well being on the other side of the fense, it irkes me that a bank would be willing to write 100k or what ever off on a house....maybe i'm jealous per say. no bank has ever given me free money.
 

The following was written by a longtime banking industry analyst:

Remember, during the presidential campaign, how we all kept going on and on about how smart Barack Obama is? Remember?

Turns out we were wrong! I can’t speak to topics like foreign affairs or macroeconomics, but I do know about banking. And I will say flat out that Obama’s approach to dealing with bankers and the banking industry has been brainless. It is shocking to see what the guy appears to not know.


On Monday, the President summoned the heads of the country’s big banks to try to jawbone them into lending more. “America’s big banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers,” he said after the meeting. “Now that they’re back on their feet, we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild the economy.”

Really? If the President wants the banks to start lending more, he might spend less time yammering at CEOs and more time talking to his own regulators. They don’t seem to have gotten the memo. Instead, regulators are apparently doing all they can to ensure that banks keep their lending to a minimum. For example, they now seem to be insisting banks maintain minimum capital standards meaningfully above the published, official bogeys. Before the credit crunch hit, for instance, OCC policy said a bank would be considered “adequately capitalized” if it carried a Tier 1 capital ratio of 4%, and “well-capitalized” if it carried a Tier 1 ratio of 6%. It was simple. Right there in print.


And now—who knows? Regulators won’t come out and admit they’ve moved the goalposts but, as multiple conversations I’ve lately had with bank CEOs show, they have. Now, apparently, it takes a 10% Tier 1 ratio to be considered well-capitalized, and regulators don’t mind if banks are even a tad over that. This is not an official policy change, remember, but rather a de facto shift that’s happening at bank after bank across the country.

Mr. President, the arithmetic couldn’t be simpler: the higher the capital ratio, the less credit is available and the more it costs! So if you want more credit to flow into economy, tell your regulators to stop the freelancing and stick to their published policy. It should be a short conversation. They work for you. You might also tell them to ease off their tactic of forcing banks to downgrade (and take added reserves for) loans that are current and cash-flowing. Each loan is different, of course, but if a borrower has managed to stay current to this point in the cycle, his lender isn’t necessarily being imprudent if it gives him the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, banks will have to take redundant reserves and will have less capital to use to facilitate lending. This really isn’t hard.


President Obama’s ignorance of how banking works seems to be nearly encyclopedic. He accuses the banks he spoke with Monday of playing a big role in causing the credit crunch. For the most part, they did not. (The main culprits have all long since collapsed.) He says the big banks should be grateful for the “extraordinary assistance” they received from the government. But except for Citi, none of the big banks even wanted the money. He keeps pushing this misbegotten Consumer Financial Protection Agency. But the effect of the CFPA would be to constrict credit, not expand it. His understanding of reality seems to be upside down and backwards.

It’s also a jarring to hear the President talk about the “extraordinary commitment” he expects lenders to now make. The last time the government wanted that kind of concerted effort from the lending industry, things didn’t turn out so well. Then, the goal was the expansion of home ownership—everyone from President Bush to Barney Frank was all for it—and the key tool banks used to get there was an emphasis on subprime lending. I don’t need to remind you how that ended.


The banking business isn’t complicated. Banks borrow money at one interest rate and turn around it and lend it at another, higher rate. If enough borrowers repay their loans, banks will turn a profit and will be able to lend even more. A kind of virtuous circle will ensue. If enough borrowers don’t repay their loans, all hell breaks loose. That’s why political meddling in the lending business (that is, elected officials’ lobbying bankers to make uneconomic loans) can be so toxic to the economy. I don’t get why President Obama persists in meddling now.

Nobody is asking Barack Obama to turn into the second coming of J.P. Morgan. But he might at least grasp the basics. Can’t any of the economic graybeards who endorsed him last year pick up the phone and explain the way the world works? We’re told he’s very bright. It wouldn’t likely be a long or difficult conversation.
 
well being on the other side of the fense, it irkes me that a bank would be willing to write 100k or what ever off on a house....maybe i'm jealous per say. no bank has ever given me free money.

I don't think they ever actually forgive a 100k loan and just give someone a free home.

Seems like an urban myth.

The only instance I can think of are those raffles or free home giveways to the needy.
 
I don't think they ever actually forgive a 100k loan and just give someone a free home.

Seems like an urban myth.

The only instance I can think of are those raffles or free home giveways to the needy.

there is a college professor, who has been on MSNBC (go figure) that is preaching that home owners should walk away from his or her house if underwater, and that there shouldn't be any accountablity for walking away. then he also made a comment that banks should write down the money owed to the bank to the current market levels...i.e. someone purchased a house for 199,000 and the house is worth 99,000 the bank should take the loss.
 
there is a college professor, who has been on MSNBC (go figure) that is preaching that home owners should walk away from his or her house if underwater, and that there shouldn't be any accountablity for walking away. then he also made a comment that banks should write down the money owed to the bank to the current market levels...i.e. someone purchased a house for 199,000 and the house is worth 99,000 the bank should take the loss.

Well I agree, That guy is wrong. The home buyers know that's the chance THEY take.

Real estate values fluctuate.

However, it's in the best interest of the banks to refinance at low rates , or possibly even forgive SOME of the original loan amount rather than foreclose.
 
Last edited:
Not if they're sure they will continue to have problems with the loan.

And in this economy, that's the likelihood.

Take the home now before it depreciates any further and fire-sale it.

You do know that our government is currently loading up and bracing for another round of bank failures...

Big money is buying T-Bills at zero return just hoping to get their money back in three months.

The Democrats are running government like it was a slush fund, pure and simple.
__________________
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.
 
Well I agree, That guy is wrong. The home buyers know that's the chance THEY take.

Real estate values fluctuate.

However, it's in the best interest of the banks to refinance at low rates , or possibly even forgive SOME of the original loan amount rather than foreclose.

Banks don't want these properties back, thats for sure. Much the same for commercial real estate. We will have to see how this plays out. Home ownership, grossly overrated.
 
Banks don't want these properties back, thats for sure. Much the same for commercial real estate. We will have to see how this plays out. Home ownership, grossly overrated.

Well, if it was a seller's market, things would be different.

But it's pointless to foreclose when the properties won't sell and they sit and rot while still requiring maintenance, heating, property tax , etc.

Actually, do banks have to pay PT on properties they own?

:confused:
 
Well, if it was a seller's market, things would be different.

But it's pointless to foreclose when the properties won't sell and they sit and rot while still requiring maintenance, heating, property tax , etc.

Actually, do banks have to pay PT on properties they own?

:confused:

Taxes, insurance and maintenance if they take fee simple title via foreclosure. Probably condo fees as well, banks not in a good place if they have to take back lots of properties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top