Archive for June, 2010

UN Says Ditch The Dollar As Global Reserve

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

The United Nations has slammed the U.S. dollar in a new report called Retooling Global Development. They’re recommending an end to the dollar’s role as dominant reserve currency, and pushing for a new global reserve regime based on a supranational currency made up of a basket of developed nation currencies.

While we’ve heard this kind of recommendation before, the UN is re-energizing its push. For example, they blame the financial crisis squarely on the dollar system:

The 2008-2009 global economic crisis demonstrates that the accumulation of deficits by the reserve-currency country, sustained by other countries because of their national policy objectives, is not self-correcting and leads to a crisis of global proportions whose costs are incurred by many innocent parties.

Thing is, they also admit that the dollar remains immensely popular as a reserve asset, despite its problems and track record. They even predict that it could become more entrenched as a reserve asset going forward:

To reverse global imbalances, developing countries would need to decrease, not increase, self-insurance [accumulating dollar reserves]. Yet, the success of self-insurance as protection during the crisis suggests that it will probably become even more popular going forward. It is unlikely that countries will become less dependent on self-insurance without a real decline in the vulnerabilities associated with volatile international capital flows.

Thus there’s only way to end the dollar’s reign — using global regulatory force:

Before the crisis, there had already been a move towards a multi-currency reserve system, which became more pronounced with the introduction of the euro. At this point in time, it is impossible to predict how the situation will evolve, absent an explicit political process.

They want a new reserve asset managed by global institutions such as the IMF.

Reducing dependence on the dollar through increased use of a created currency made up of a basket of currencies such as the SDR could be a significant step towards greater stability in the world economy. Greater SDR use would constitute an additional tool for creating the international liquidity needed for the conduct of a global counter-cyclical policy, for which there is already a precedent, as reflected in the April 2009 decision of the G-20.

It’s obviously a complex issue that deserves study, but we’ll say this — while it’s easy to point out all of the flaws in the U.S. dollar, the world needs to make sure that whatever replacement they devise isn’t even worse.

The regulatory mechanism for a new global currency would be inordinately complex and would represent a substantial increase in power for supranational institutions such as the UN, since they would likely control many facets of this new currency.

Wall Street Tumbles 268 Points While Tesla Up 41%

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

U.S. stocks fell sharply to finish at their lowest level of the year Tuesday after a drop in consumer confidence here and in leading indicators in China dimmed hopes of a global economic recovery. The DJIA fell 268 points, or 2.7%, to end at 9,870.30, its lowest close since early November. The S&P lost 33.33 points, or 3.1%, to 1,041.24, its lowest level since late October. The broad index was weighed down by a 3.9% drop in both its industrials and financials sectors. The S&P is again for the 3rd time in 6 weeks is testing the key 1040 level. Third time is a charm and it’s headed to break well below that level.

In China, Industrial companies and natural-resource firms were among the hardest hit after the Conference Board revised downward its leading economic index for China. This morning we received new indications that growth is slowing in China.

The downbeat sentiment had investors flocking to government debt, with yields on the 2-year Treasury note falling to record lows. Europe’s common currency also fell, with labor strikes in Greece and Spain illustrating discontent with the continent’s austerity measures.

TESLA

Tesla Motors shares shot nearly 41% higher Tuesday in their first day of trade, an enthusiastic reception for the Silicon Valley electric car marker in sharp contrast to steep declines elsewhere in the equities market. The stock opened at $19 a share, 12% above the $17 offer price. After briefly pulling back to $17.54, it staged a full-blown rally that carried it briefly to $25 a share.

Tesla, the first American car maker to go public in half a century, priced the deal one dollar above the initial offer price of $14 to $16 a share.

The maker of the Roadster sports car raised $202 million from the sale of 11.88 million shares. Insiders, including 38-year-old Chief Executive Elon Musk, collectively sold an additional 1.4 million shares in the deal.

Musk reaped an IPO payday of $15.3 million based on the 900,212 shares he sold, according to a regulatory filing. Tesla on Monday boosted the share offering by 20% to 13.3 million shares due to strong demand. The company’s selling shareholders granted the deal underwriters a 30-day option to buy an additional 1.995 million common shares to cover any overallotments. In all, the IPO could be worth $260 million.

Last year’s hyped IPO for the future of the automotive industry was last September’s IPO of A123 Systems Inc., a maker of lithium-ion batteries for hybrid vehicles. A123 (AONE 9.20) shares spiked on their first day of trading, but the stock has now fallen 27% from its $13.50 offer price.

There’s enough problems with the bottom line of Tesla. The euphoria will likely fade soon given the cost of this vehicle in the recessionary environment. There is a very limited market for Tesla’s cars. Tesla has yet to earn a dime since it was founded by Musk and Chief Technical Officer J.B. Straubel in 2003. The company has lost almost $300 million since inception, and does not expect to make a quarterly profit until at least 2012.

Tesla IPO's Today

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

Tesla Motors will offer up its shares to the public for the first time on Tuesday, testing investors’ faith in a company that has proven it can make functional and stunning electric cars but has never had a profitable quarter. PayPal founder Elon Musk’s seven-year old auto company lost $55.7 million last year and $260.7 million since its inception. The company has performed so poorly from a financial standpoint that Musk recently said he lost his entire personal fortune on Tesla.

But investors are giddy about the Palo Alto, Calif.-based automaker’s initial public offering, prompting Tesla on Monday to increase the number of shares it plans to offer by nearly a fifth to 13.3 million. Tesla, which will trade on Nasdaq under the symbol “TSLA,” priced its shares late Monday at $17 each, above the target range of $14 to $16. That allowed Tesla to raise more than $226 million in the IPO. Much of the excitement is pegged to Tesla’s launch of the Model S, an electric sedan that the company says will sell for a minimum of $50,000 in 2012. That’s much more reasonable and practical for most consumers than the vehicle that Tesla currently sells, the $100,000 Roadster sports car.

The electric automaker plans to acquire a plant where it will produce 20,000 new Model S sedans each year starting in 2012. That’s a significant increase from the 1,063 Roadsters it has sold — total. But until 2012, Tesla said it will continue to pile up hefty losses. “Investors that are interested in Tesla know that it’s going to continue to burn cash until it gets Model S into commercial production,” said Matt Therian, an analyst at IPO research firm Renaissance Capital in Greenwich, Conn. “Tesla investors are really looking out to 2012, with their investment very much tied to whether they think 20,000 is a conservative or an aggressive number.”

There are many reasons to believe in Elon Musk & Co. Musk made his name and fortune on the success of electronic payment company PayPal, which was eventually acquired by eBay. And his space exploration technology company, SpaceX, earlier this month launched the first successful, privately funded spaceship with the capacity for human space transport. Tesla doesn’t just have the backing of the successful Musk. Earlier this year, Tesla borrowed $465 million from the Department of Energy to fund production of the Model S.

Last month, Toyota (TM) announced that it will invest $50 million in Tesla and indicated that it would be interested in doing business with Tesla in the future. Tesla has also partnered with Daimler to develop an electric version of Daimler’s tiny Smart cars.

Reasons to be skeptical

Still, some experts say that there are several reasons for investors thinking of buying Tesla’s stock to precede with caution. By Tesla’s own admission, the Model S has just one operable prototype, no final design or manufacturing process. The company also has not completed its purchase of the plant in which it plans to make the new car. As a result, Tesla’s timetable for bringing the Model S to market may be a reach: After first being announced in September 2008, the company’s plans to produce the Model S in 2012 is ambitious even for larger, established automakers. “Most experienced automakers race to put a car together in three years,” said Angus MacKenzie, editor of Motor Trend magazine. “I can’t see Tesla making more than a handful of these — if any — in 2012.”

That’s not good news, considering Tesla has competition coming to the stage quickly. Nissan will sell the electric Leaf and General Motors is ready to bring the hybrid-electric Chevrolet Volt to market next year — a year ahead of the Model S. The Nissan Leaf is set to get 100 miles to the charge with just a $25,000 price tag (after tax credits). The Volt will get 40 miles to the charge, but will also have a gas engine, and it will be sold for about $35,000. The Tesla Model S will have a variety of range options from 160 miles to 300 miles per charge, but at double the price of the Leaf, Tesla will likely remain a niche automaker for some time. What’s more, Tesla has just 12 dealerships to sell and service its vehicles, compared with more than 1,000 Nissan dealers and thousands of Chevy dealerships in the United States.

But Tesla owns an undeniable “cool” factor that its competitors would love to have. The ultra-slick Roadster has a range of about 244 miles per charge, according to the company — the first production electric vehicle to get more than 200 miles on a single charge. And it does zero to 60 miles per hour in just 3.9 seconds — better than most similarly priced sports cars.

With the Model S, Tesla hopes that it can match “cool” with affordability and practicality and make its new investors happy.

What Are Penny Stocks

Monday, June 28th, 2010

A penny stock, also known as a micro cap equity, refers to a share in a company which trades for less than $5.00. While this is the official definition, and is used by the Securities and Exchange Commission, generally every full service or discount broker, and the vast majority of analysts and institutional investors, there are other more loosely held criteria applied by the general public and most retail investors.

Some of these alternative criteria include:

  • a price per share being less than $1, and as low as fractions of one cent
  • a market cap of less than $50 million or less than $25 million
  • trading on more obscure markets, such as the Pink Sheets

While such definitions are sometimes used by individuals and retail investors, the various and loose unconventional definitions enjoy no consensus or accuracy.

As well, there are many limitations with the alternative definitions, as they often contradict themselves. For example, there are many companies trading for only a few cents with market capitalizations of hundreds of millions of dollars, or corporations trading on the Pink Sheets but having share prices of $50 or more. (i.e. GM and now FRE and FNM)

Both negative and positive connotations surround micro caps and low-priced shares.

Speculative investors are attracted to micro cap equities, because generally they:

  • are more volatile
  • make larger price moves in shorter time frames
  • have greater upside potential on a percentage basis
  • are easier to acquire with less initial investment

More conservative traders usually shy away from the smaller stocks, because:

  • the underlying companies are often less secure or fundamentally sound
  • many shares are too volatile, on both a price and percentage basis
  • the companies generally don’t pay dividends
  • they aren’t subject to the same reporting requirements as Blue Chip equities, if they are on the lower level exchanges

The two sides to the investment philosophy ring true to the old axiom, “high risk, high reward.”

There are many well known corporations who either are, or at one time were, trading for less than $5 per share. Some of these include commonly followed companies such as Sun Microsystems, Ford Motor Company, and Sprint Nextel.

Many of these companies started out trading for low prices, and as they became more widely known, and their businesses progressed, they made millionaires out of their investors.

G-20: Toronto Summit

Monday, June 28th, 2010

The Group of 20 Nations in Toronto agreed to reduced government deficits in a meeting defined by odd contrasts in fiscal management and in vocabulary.

Using the year’s most vivid oxymoron, President Barack Obama said the nations mapping out the path for economic recovery were in “violent agreement,” with an accord announced Sunday that called for deficits to be halved by 2013 and stabilized by 2016. With bank regulation mostly off the agenda to be tackled more forcefully at a G20 summit in Seoul in November — G20 Toronto set the goal of having banks increase their capital reserves as a cushion against future meltdowns and said banks should be assessed a “fair” sum for the financial havoc of the past three years, The Washington Post reported Monday.

Also left largely alone was the issue of China’s currency policy, but The Wall Street Journal said the “specter” of the G20 summit had already pushed China to relax the yuan’s peg to the dollar. In the week before the meeting in Toronto, China said it would allow limited flexibility in the yuan, which then rose 0.42 percent against the dollar, a pittance according to some, but the largest shift in two years.

The headline accomplishment for the summit, however, was a plan to reduce deficits in which leaders included the caveat that nations could plan the pace of reductions according to individual circumstances. “Every country will chart its own unique course, but make no mistake we’re moving in the same direction,” Obama said. The agreement, however, does not put each and every nation on the same path. It puts Germany and the United States in tight spots and excuses China and India from looking at deficit reductions in the near term.

The United States is in a tight spot, because Obama wants the option to continue to spend to create jobs. In his closing remarks to the summit, he said nations agreed to “continued growth in the short term and fiscal sustainability in the medium term.” That means spend now and put on the brakes next year. Presumably, that’s the same path as most of Europe, but on a different timetable.

Germany is in a squeeze, because it is seen as a “surplus advanced” nation, like China, where its economic strength and positive trade balance put its neighbors at a disadvantage. But Germany is in the eurozone and is acting to shore up confidence in the currency that has dropped about 15 percent against the dollar this year. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has proposed cutting spending by $96 billion through 2014. But other nations — Greece, Spain, Ireland, and others — would prefer that Germans start spending more on vacations, oranges and sweaters, for example.

Obama said European countries were making “very difficult choices” and that he would expect to do so next year. “Next year, when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up ’cause I’m calling their bluff,” he said.

Financial Regulation Reform Bill

Friday, June 25th, 2010

In the biggest Financial overhaul made since the Big Deal of the 1930′s is a step closer in regulating the Financial Sector. In what has caused the 2007 market crash and downturn of world economies will now be reigned in closer to the Financial Oversight committee. We’re a step closer which now seems 99% certain that both Democrats and Republicans will support the overhaul for President Obama to sign.  A U.S. Senate-House of Representatives panel has completed a bill overhauling financial regulation.  The bill must now win approval in each chamber before it can go to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.

Here is a brief look at the bill’s main provisions:

SWAPS PUSH-OUT/DERIVATIVES:

Wall Street firms that dominate the $615-trillion over-the-counter derivatives market would have to spin off dealing operations in some swaps, but could keep many swaps in-house, including derivatives to hedge their own risk. Much OTC derivatives trading would be redirected through more accountable channels such as exchanges and clearinghouses. Many OTC contracts end-users could carry on as before. Moves most derivatives to exchanges, routed through clearinghouses,e etc.  Customized swaps remain OTC, but have reporting requirements. New capital, margin, reporting, record-keeping and business conduct rules for firms that deal in derivatives. Failed to overturn CFMA.

TOO BIG TO FAIL

The new regulation does not directly address either the repeal of Glass Steagall or TBTF. The crisis legacy is a financial services sector that is highly concentrated with dramatically reduced competition. The six largest financial firms — combined assets: $9.4 trillion — will still dominate the industry.  Too-Big-to-Fail remains the law of the land. This is in particular to prevent massive bailouts like AIG’s and disastrous bankruptcies like Lehman Brothers’, the bill calls for a new government “orderly liquidation” process for financial firms on the verge of collapse. Authorities could seize and liquidate them, with costs covered by sales of assets and fees on other firms if needed.

MORTGAGE UNDERWRITING STANDARDS:

Establishes new minimum underwriting standards for mortgages. No more no doc, NINJA, or Liar loans. Lenders must verify income, credit history and job status. Would ban payments to brokers for steering borrowers to high-priced loans. Of all the regulatory changes passed today, this seems to be the only one that, if in place a decade ago, would have prevented (or at least dramatically reduced) the crisis.

NEW REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Gives federal regulators new authority to seize and break up large troubled financial firms without taxpayer bailouts; creates a sector rescue fund from banks with > $50B in assets. The time to assess this fee is before a crisis, not after — when banks need every penny of capital.

LEVERAGE

Inexplicably, all of the new regulations fail to reduce leverage rules today. Banks would have to set aside more capital to ride out tough times, but will get several years to comply.

FINANCIAL STABILITY COUNCIL

10-member Financial Stability Oversight Council to address system-wide risks to stability, with the power to break up financial firms.  Oh, and about that leverage thingie? Directs them to look into it. Question: Why not address leverage NOW, instead of kicking it down the road? Is Congress really THAT cowardly?

CREDIT RATING AGENCIES: 

Sets up a quasi-government entity to address conflicts of interest. Allow investors to sue credit-rating agencies. Establishes new SEC oversight office. Retains Oligopoly; Fails to open ratings to more competition. Considering that the ratings agencies were the prime enablers of the crisis, this failure is shameful.

VOLCKER RULE:

Curbs propriety trading by FDIC insured depository institution. Would not have pevented this crisis, but addresses the moral hazard of banks in the future due to the bailout. Goldmann Sachs will benefit the most from this ruling. This will limit the growth of the biggest banks; and curb banks’ involvement in private equity and hedge funds, except for small investments allowed by a loophole added to the rule late in debate. Some big banks’ profits would be pinched by both the Volcker rule and the Lincoln swaps plan, with a few Wall Street giants potentially facing structural changes.

CORPORATE PAY:

Give shareholders a non-binding vote on executive pay. No clawback provisions. Does not address imposing liability on management for excess risk taking, corporate collapse or taxpayers bailouts.

FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE BANKING RULES:

Overturns OCC tool John Dugan Federal pre-emption of state regulations. States to impose their own stricter consumer protection laws on national banks. National banks can seek, and will likely receive exemptions from state laws, undercutting this entire law. The first federal monitor for state-policed insurers would be formed. It’s not federal regulation — yet.

DEPOSIT INSURANCE:

Permanently increases FDIC for banks, thrifts and credit unions to $250,000. Fly int he ointment: Congress failed to fund this, although the FDIC will be covered by taxpayers if and when they run out of cash.

CONSUMER AGENCY:

The bill would set up a new bureau in the Federal Reserve to regulate mortgages and credit cards. The watchdog has sharp teeth, but couldn’t bite car dealers, who won an exemption. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a half decent idea, but the exemption for Auto Dealers — the typical family’s 2nd biggest purchase is a car — is unconscionable.  Putting the agency inside the Federal Reserve is beyond idiotic.

Summary

The financial overhaul isn’t as bad as intially thought, that is for the banks. This has increased more government oversight but it still doesn’t resolve nor prevent the next Financial Crisis. Freddie and Fannie issue still hasn’t been resolved-mortgage holders where every ordinary American taxpayer is still paying to support the two agencies. This isn’t a stricter regulation so the winner is Wall Street. Main Street loses here with the exception of lower debit card fees which is pretty ridiculous because the banks will soon pass that loss of income by other means. We’ll probably see annual fees added to credit cards where it wasn’t charged intially.

In its financial overhaul legislation, Congress seems to be sending a message to the nation’s banks: Be very small or very big. In many ways, the banks most affected by the new legislation will be regionals. The largest banks have the scale and revenue diversification to dilute–or circumvent–the costs of the slew of new regulations that will likely follow the financial overhaul bill. Community banks with less than $10 billion in assets, on the other hand, are escaping the overhaul almost entirely.

Losers

George Engelke Jr., chairman and CEO of Astoria Financial Corp. (AF), with consternation. His Lake Success, N.Y., company, with $20 billion in assets, is one of the nation’s largest thrifts, and will get hit with new capital rules and a new regulator. “We didn’t cause all these problems,” he said. Big banks get off easy, he complained, while the bill “primarily smacks around” regional banks with more than $15 billion in assets. The bill stipulates that in five years trust-preferred securities won’t count as Tier One capital, a critical regulatory measure. Though many of the trust-preferreds will have matured in five years, Engelke is worried regulators might take a tougher stance and force banks might to replace them with equity earlier.

Senate Agriculture Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) raised the exemption from the rule about trust preferred securities for banks with assets of more than $10 billion, a move that will shelter Arvest Bank Group Inc. of Bentonville, Ark., Lincoln’s home state. Arvest Bank is predominantly owned by the Walton family, of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT). “I can’t call anybody” in Congress to lift the threshold further, Engelke said. “If I were Wal-Mart, the rules would be $25 billion.” Left unaddressed is why trust-preferred securities have merit in small banks but not in large ones, he said.
A spokeswoman for Lincoln said last week she was pushing the change to make sure “no Arkansas bank–no matter its owner–is punished” by the provision.”

Astoria is also going to be impacted by the merger of its primary regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Engelke fears that the OCC, to prove itself to Congress, will take a tougher stand than the OTS. Thrifts “are going to pay the price” for the “leaning curve” at the OCC as well, he said.  Indeed, some thrifts or even regional banks may seek to be regulated by state banking supervisors, who bankers feel might have a better understanding of their specific local needs, rather than federal overseers. Regional banks larger than Astoria got hit even harder. Those with more than $50 billion in assets will pay a fee to cover the cost of the financial overhaul. All banks have to pay more attention to state laws because federal regulators would not be able to preempt state legislation as easily as they can now. All this will add to the banks’ legal and regulatory costs, without creating too much of a headache for the big banks.
Banks with less than $10 billion in assets will escape the consumer protection bureau established in the legislation. The community banks are clearly the winner of this bill.

GLD – Actual Gold Holdings

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

You ever wondered how GLD trades and how to justify th eprice increases other than the actual Gold value per ounce. Well I did some leg work on the famous Spider ETF GLD. Please read the fact sheet of the ETF here. You see, this gold ETF holds the actual Gold Bullions as stated below.

Allocated: The Trust’s allocated gold bullion is kept in the form of London Good Delivery bars (400 oz.) and held in an allocated account.

**Storage: The gold bullion is held by the Custodian, HSBC Bank USA, in its London vault or in the vaults of sub-custodians

The next question you probably going to ask me, “Well…how much Gold does this ETF hold?” I looked into that too!!! Believe it or not, this information is updated daily here. As of June 23rd GLD currently holds 1313.13 tonnes of gold. Is an accumulation of Gold by this ETF is about to cause a gold price explosion?” Sure enough, yesterday, Goldman Sachs came out with a bullish report on gold in which the firm stated that should gold purchasing by ETFs continue at the recent pace, then gold at $1,400 is a virtual certainty. A quick look at the closing NAV in the gold holdings of (NYSE: GLD), as a proxy of the broader Gold ETF community, indicates that $1,400 – here we come. Just overnight, GLD added another 5.2 tonnes of gold, bringing its new total again to a fresh all time high of 1,313.13 tonnes, a whopping 76 tonnes higher than a month ago. As the indexed chart below demonstrates, what we thought could become a positive feedback loop whereby non-physical ETFs scramble to at least catch up to a par NAV, is already in process: the ETF accumulation by GLD, which is now the 6th largest gold-owning entity in the world, has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the ETF is indeed purchasing said gold in the open market, there is no way this would not be moving the price much higher, absent massive synthetic shorting by the LBMA. Yet at some point, internal risk controls at even a firm with infinite margin like JPMorgan (position which it inherited when they purchased Lehman Bros.) will take over, and force the bank to cover its record short exposure. When that happens, the already disclosed demand by entities such as ETFs and Central Banks, will catch up with the most manipulated and distorted supply curve in the history of economics.

Text Of FOMC Statement = Slowed Growth

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Minutes from the Federal Open Market Committee met in April suggests that the economic recovery is proceeding and that the labor market is improving gradually. Household spending is increasing but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit.

Business spending on equipment and software has risen significantly; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Financial conditions have become less supportive of economic growth on balance, largely reflecting developments abroad. Bank lending has continued to contract in recent months. Nonetheless, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be moderate for a time.

Prices of energy and other commodities have declined somewhat in recent months, and underlying inflation has trended lower. With substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to be subdued for some time.

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.

The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and will employ its policy tools as necessary to promote economic recovery and price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Elizabeth A. Duke; Donald L. Kohn; Sandra Pianalto; Eric S. Rosengren; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Kevin M. Warsh. Voting against the policy action was Thomas M. Hoenig, who believed that continuing to express the expectation of exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period was no longer warranted because it could lead to a build-up of future imbalances and increase risks to longer-run macroeconomic and financial stability, while limiting the Committee’s flexibility to begin raising rates modestly

Housing Numbers Are Getting Worse

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

I’ve been mentioning on several occasions, that the housing issues will not be resolved until jobs are created. Number’s are getting worse as the tax incentive expires.  Foreclosure rates are on the rise. Delinquencies have somewhat slowed down but that is still yet to be determined when summer jobs (construction, landscapers, etc) slow down.

Delinquencies on U.S. home mortgages fell for the first time in more than two years while the number of newly initiated foreclosures rose sharply in the the first quarter of this year, U.S. banking regulators said on Wednesday.

The total number of serious delinquencies fell 7.5 percent to 2.2 million, while the number of newly initiated foreclosures rose 18.6 percent to 370,856 in the first quarter, according to a report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Weak US Housing Data Brings Markets Down

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Stocks fell sharply Tuesday, dragged down by disappointing housing data and weakness in energy shares amid uncertainty about regulating offshore drilling. Existing-home sales fell 2.2 percent in May from April, and Fitch Ratings slashed its rating on BNP Paribas, the largest bank in the euro zone by deposits.

The S&P shed 1.6 percent. The CBOE volatility index, widely considered the best gauge of fear in the market, was above 26 at the closing bell. 

Sales of previously owned homes fell unexpectedly in May as delays in processing mortgage applications hampered the closing of contracts benefiting from a popular homebuyer tax credit, an industry group said on Tuesday.  Although the tax credit for home buyers expired in April, qualified home owners have until June 30 to close contracts. “There hasn’t been much of a rebound in housing. We are growing from the extremely low levels of last year. On average, we’re looking for flat sales. The housing market, whose collapse dragged the economy into its longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, still faces major challenges from foreclosed properties, which are keeping the supply of houses elevated and prices depressed. The decline in sales last month was broad-based, with sales of single-family dwellings sliding 1.6 percent. Condominiums and co-ops dropped 6.8 percent.

A federal judge reversed the six-month ban on deepwater drilling imposed by the Obama administration. The White House vowed to appeal.

Financial stocks ended lower as House and Senate Democrats are scrambling to complete their financial regulation overhaul before President Obama meets with world leaders at G20 meeting in Canada this weekend, ironing out differences on a range of complicated provisions from bank regulation to consumer protection. 

The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee begins its two-day policy meeting Tuesday, issuing its latest pronouncement on interest rates and the economy Wednesday at around 2:15 pm New York time.

The Fed is expected to keep its key policy rate—the federal-funds target rate, at record low near zero to revitalize the economy, a decision the central bank has maintained since December 2008.