The Almost Daily 2¢ - Jumbo Lives (A.K.A Realtor’s Win)

So… it looks like that’s it.

Washington pulled the trigger on what they term a bipartisan “middle class” initiative to “respond to the economic pressures affecting the American people” by “putting money in the hands of working families”.

Undoubtedly, the most significant element of the proposal is NOT the cash handouts or adjustments to depreciating business investment but is instead the increasing of the GSE conforming loan limit to $730K.

After the passage of this initiative the various federal “affordable housing” programs will NO LONGER BE WORKING TO ASSIST LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES afford housing as first time home buyers (as they were all intended to do) but instead will be working to enable and subsidize truly affluent homeowners and housing speculators.

This has to be easily the most warped and grotesque and truly unfair socialization of private financial losses on record.

Realtors, Homebuilders, Mortgage brokers, Flippers and other Speculators, DINK Yuppies, regular Yuppies, HGTV, the most affluent 1%, hedge funds, Countrywide Financial, Bear Sterns… greed itself has just been bailed out on the backs of the middle class.

Hey Red states!... You are now subsidizing the Blue states and enabling their most affluent and highly educated residents to continue a lifestyle of unspeakable (and unsustainable) excess.

So it looks like all the Realtor RPAC (the largest and most affluent and influential PAC our country has ever known) money paid off!!!!

If you are as outraged as I am over this….

LET THE FOLLOWING RESPONSIBLE PARTIES KNOW! THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE...

• The White House
• Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank at (202) 225-5931
• New York Senator Charles Schumer
• California Representative Nancy Pelosi

The Almost Daily 2¢ - Freddie’s Delinquents

The latest turmoil concerning Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae likely represents one of the most significant blows to have hit the housing markets and the overall economy since the start of this historic downturn.

Given the eroding results of Freddie Mac's third quarter operations and other tumultuous events, there has been a clear loss in confidence in these two government sponsored enterprises (GSE) both closing the door to many of the proposed opportunities for market relief and further revealing the true extent of the housing decline.

Putting aside the recent “fuzzy math” episode, today Freddie Mac has disclosed a tremendous deterioration of mortgage credit in the third quarter of 2007 resulting in a whopping $1.2 billion of expenses (this is technically a 971% increase in expenses over the same quarter last year) related to increasing loan loss provisions and REO (real estate owned) operations.

Although, Freddie Mac’s single family delinquency rate has been rising and now stands at .51% of their current mortgage holdings, that number EXCLUDES losses coming from their more risky “Structured Security” transactions and delinquent loans that have had their terms modified under individual agreements with borrowers.

The unpaid principle balance of Freddie’s single family "Structured Transactions" as of September 30, 2007 was $20.2 billion, representing approximately 1% of their total mortgage portfolio and carrying a delinquency rate of a staggering 9.0%.

Keep in mind, this is the government sponsored “conforming loan” market we are talking about.

Both Freddie and Fannie, being highly regulated, are presumed to have adhered to a greater degree of standards when transacting mortgages.

Obviously, we are now seeing a clear indication of a substantial deterioration of the near-prime and prime mortgage markets.

Additionally, given the current circumstances, I believe it is safe to say that any opportunity for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to assist the Jumbo loan market, as has been suggested by both Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Federal Reserve Chainman Ben Bernanke, is now totally gone.

The Daily 2¢ - Jackson’s Yuppies

The Bush administration has got to get its story straight.

On several occasions now, including as recently as last Thursday’s hearing in front of the House Financial Services Committee, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alfonso Jackson has explicitly stated that administration policy is not intended to help so called “Yuppies”.

Yet, with their now uniform acceptance of the “temporary” conforming loan limit increase, that’s exactly Senator Schumer, Representative Frank and a reluctant Bernanke, Paulson and Jackson seem bent on doing.

In an interview with Bloomberg last July, Secretary Jackson initially made his anti-yuppie bailout position.

“We have very educated people that decided that they wanted to live above their means, and we call them yuppies… young people who wanted a Mercedes Benz but at the same time wanted a $600,000 home. So, they go in and make a loan that is basically interest only wake up the next morning and they can’t cover the note because the house has not increased [in value]… In those cases, we are not willing to bail those people out. But low and moderate income people, fireman and police who didn’t read the fine print, we will be able to help them stay in their home.”

Again, during the press conference preceding the “bailout” conference with all the national homebuilders that occurred earlier this month, Jackson reiterated his anti-yuppie stance.

“… this is a limited market we are trying to save. We’re not here to save those persons who made those huge exotic loans, which I call yuppies, We’re here to look at middleclass Americans.”

Then again, at last week’s committee hearing, Jackson stated that yuppies were not on the list to be saved.

“Let me say this to you mister chairman, clearly there are some people that we are not going to be able to help. Especially, as I always say, the yuppies who had this extravagant decision to have two or three cars, and a huge house they can’t afford but the people we are looking at are basically middle income people, fireman… police, teachers, nurses.”

So, I would think the point has been made very clearly… No Yuppie Bailout!

Yet, with the proposed conforming loan limit increase to $625,000 for the more expensive “urban” areas, it’s obvious that, by its definition, the yuppie and his or her lender is being bailed out.

Who else lives in the expensive metro markets and borrows $625,000 toward their home purchase anyway… fireman, police and nurses?

It’s important to keep in mind that the main proponents of the conforming loan limit increase are Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), both of whom receive the overwhelming majority of their campaign contributions from the real estate and financial service sectors (hat tip Frothy).

It seems obvious that, in the name of helping the common American, and even with numerous public statements to the contrary, the government will plow ahead and bailout Wall Street.

One good turn deserves another as they say!

The Daily 2¢ - The End of All Times?

A reader recently commented that by advocating the position of allowing the housing markets to play themselves out unfettered from government intervention, I was taking a “black and white” view of “free markets” and essentially supporting a financial seizure.

Furthermore, the commenter pointed to the bank run in the UK and further suggested that inaction would lead to a violent downward spiral inevitably resulting in a titanic market crash, worthless currency, bread lines, the breakdown of civility and finally chaos in the streets.

Although I do have a fondness for the taste of human flesh, I’d like to challenge this contention ever so slightly.

First, I think favoring government intervention in the unwinding of the national housing bubbles is actually the more “black and white” perspective as it assumes a measure of certainty about the legitimacy of the action, its effectiveness and more importantly that, through its implementation, greater harm is not being done.

We have to first accept that the housing-lending boom has significantly overpriced residential housing, particularly in the metro areas, and that this mispricing will correct one way or the other.

You don’t have to take my word for it, every conceivable measure of sales, values, mortgage equity withdrawal, homeownership rates, second home ownership rates, homebuilder sentiment, construction activity, realtor membership, and finally a host of popular culture phenomena like “flipping” television entertainment supports the notion that we have just experienced an anomaly of epic proportions.

The correction is upon us but our economy, I believe, is large enough and dynamic enough to resolve the correction without causing actual Armageddon.

By taking intrusive actions, such as allowing Fannie and Freddie to become Jumbo loan lenders, the government would essentially be attempting to fill the vacuum vacated by astute market participants, in an effort to help blunt some of the downside.

But mightn’t those participants vacated for a reason?

Is it sensible for the government to attempt to resume orderly operations of an aspect of a market that the market itself has deemed too risky?

Furthermore, while I do think we are headed for a hard recession as a result of the unwinding of the housing-lending debacle, I can’t imagine that it is constructive to dwell on the worst possible outcome when weighing the costs and benefits of government actions.

Could the coming recession run deep and be widely felt with significant shakeout of sentiment and pullback in consumption?

I think so… But food lines and chaos in the streets? Probably not.

Pants On Fire!

Now that the National Association of Realtors Chief Economist David Lereah is soon to be history, let’s draw a bead on some of the other less-than-accurate, bullish-cheerleading paid-quacks out there spinning fantastic stories of housing’s future strength and riches.



Barry “Advocate of NO Housing Bubble” Habib

The CEO of the mortgage information service, The Mortgage Market Guide, Habib is frequently featured on CNBC as a mortgage expert who is well suited to advise homebuyers.

Of all the “experts” featured on CNBC’s bullish airwaves, Habib would handily win any competition for the most outlandish and self-serving statements, forecasts and recommendations.

In past CNCB segments, Barry has:

• Congratulated those who have chosen ARM loans and suggested that if rate resets concern you “cut back on a few lattes”
• Encouraged homebuyers to borrow as much as $200K more than they needed for their purchase in order to “invest” the money outside of housing for even higher returns.
• Challenged the notion that fixed rate loans are the best option for homebuyers.
  
• Suggested that interest only loans were “OK” for homebuyers and that ARM loans are “screaming bargains” while Option ARMS were “a great tool” for some buyers.
• Suggested that you should “forget what the bank says” and allocate up to 50% of after-tax income to servicing your mortgage debt burden.
• Suggested that homebuyers should not be overly concerned about the inverted yield curve as it is “not a great indicator” for upcoming recessions.
• Suggested that the US population will double in the next 50 years providing significant demand for housing.

Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies

This center, directed by Nicholas Retsinas, last year published a widely reported paper entitled “The State of The Nations Housing: 2006” that very clearly concluded that that outlook for residential housing was positive.

“Over the longer term, the outlook for housing markets is favorable. With household growth accelerating and second-home demand climbing, the number of conventional homes completed and manufactured homes placed in the coming decade should easily exceed the 18.1 million units added from 1995 to 2004. In addition, improvements in the mortgage finance system over the past several years, together with stricter inventory management in the home building industry, will help to dampen boom-bust cycles in the future. As a result, housing production should average more than two million units annually over the next ten years.”

Unfortunately for the average media consumer, it was not widely reported that the Joint Center for Housing Studies and the report itself was funded by such notable real estate insiders as The National Association of Realtors, The Nation Association of Home Builders, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

As for Retsinas, he has appeared frequently on sources such as PBS’s Newshour and CNBC and generally presents a somewhat balanced, possibly a tad too optimistic outlook while seemingly conscience of maintaining his credibility.

The “Bubble? What Housing Bubble?” Smiths

This married couple, Gary and Margaret Hwang Smith, two professors of economics at Pomona College in Claremont California last year published a widely reported paper (featured prominently by the New York Times in a article entitled “Some New Math on Homes”) that suggested that not only were many areas formally purported to be exhibiting signs of bubbles NOT bubbles, they were “screaming bargains”.

The Smiths, who have recently purchased a nearly million dollar home near their collage in Claremont also provide professional services for those who need financial coaching in order to “bring forth their best life”.

Their paper initially takes fairly sound position of using present and future rental income to calculate a “net present value” of a given home.

But then, unfortunately, the paper goes to great lengths in an attempt to justify recent prices by making overly optimistic assumptions as well as including some truly fuzzy logic.

For example, the Simth’s assist the cash flow derived from rental income with additional value derived from “non-financial factors”, such as a desire for privacy.

That’s about where the papers leaves reality and enters the realm of shameless spin and wishful thinking.

Remember, the problem with all of these “experts” is not that the average homebuyer turns to them to determine whether or not to make a home purchase.

In all likeliness, the average homebuyer has never even heard of any of these characters, even the NAR’s Lereah.

The issue here is that the lazy traditional media and overly optimistic and bullish business media take the reports, releases, and statements of these people and their respective groups and recast them into simple news blurbs that, being only loosely bound to reality, sow the seeds of widespread misinformation.

That being said, for a year now things have looked so bad that, try as they might, real estate industry shills have found it increasingly difficult to present overly optimistic information while simultaneously maintaining credibility.

Nevertheless, it’s important to remember, even celebrate, their contributions to inflating the single greatest housing bubble the country has ever seen, for at the very lest, we should remember next cycle to take every forecast with a grain of salt.

housing+bubble housing bubble federal+reserve fisher bernanke greenspan subprime lenders interest rates economy recession

Copyright © 2007
PaperMoney Blog - www.paperdinero.com
All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer

Pork and Circus!

The House Committee on Financial Services, chaired by Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank [D-MA], yesterday held a hearing to discuss the current FHA modernization effort.

Although a bill with the same objective passed the House by an overwhelming majority last year, a new bill (H.R. 1852) has now been introduced that would essentially expand the modifications to FHA including those of the last bill plus provisions to establish a new Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.

To date, the FHA operates out of a National Housing Acts “General Insurance Fund” which was established in 1965 to serve as a “as a revolving fund for carrying out all the insurance provisions”.

It appears that this new fund is creating some contention as its full purpose seems unclear and has been interpreted by some Republicans as an attempt by Democratic lawmakers to funnel surplus money out of FHA for use elsewhere.

“Now it looks like we are going down the road of another extortion of an organization for money for purposes other than for what that organization is proposed and chartered to do… creating other funds and taking money out of FHA when we’re embarking down a road of a new program I think is a very dangerous precedent.” said Representative Randy Neugebaue [R-TX].

To that, Representative Frank quickly followed up “I’ve worked with my friend from Texas on a lot of issues and there are a lot of areas where this committee can cooperate across party lines but nowhere have the difference between the parties been made more clear then in his last statement when he described as an effort by the gentle woman from California and myself as an effort to provide more funding for affordable housing as quote extortion unquote.”

There is, in fact, an additional provision found in the bill entitled “Use of FHA Savings for Affordable Housing Grant Fund” that would allow for “only for grants to provide affordable rental housing and affordable homeownership opportunities for low-income families.”

Later in the hearing, Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing, addressed the committee to share his outlook on the proposed changes which include the elimination of the a down payment as a qualification for an FHA insured mortgage.

“This year, as we all know, we have two bills pending before this committee. Both bills would raise loan limits in high cost areas. They would eliminate FHA’s antiquated down payment requirements. And they would allow, to varying degrees, risk-based pricing to occur and eliminate the burdensome cap on reverse mortgages.”

When asked about his take on the new housing insurance fund, Montgomery added “I, speaking for FHA, have IT system requirements, as the worlds largest mortgage insurance company, I would like to be able to have the ability to get staff, professional staff that would allow us to carry out our mission, especially in a reformed FHA. To be able to pay them similar to how other government agencies are. So speaking selfishly for FHA I could use those funds to help do some of what I just articulated.”

In an odd line of questioning, Representative Emanuel Cleaver, Democrat from Missouri seems to confuse the business of Fannie/Freddie GSE’s to that of FHA, “In your testimony, when you talked about the drop in the FHA share of the market in Chairwoman Waters district, that just is mind-boggling. What I would like to ask.. find out from you, is Freddie Mac has said that hey are going to buy up to $20 billion dollars in subprime mortgages, you can’t compete with the giants, but is that a way… a possibility for you to beef up your portfolio? Is it possible for FHA to buy any of the subprime mortgages?”

To that Montgomery responds “Thank you sir and as I have mentioned here on Tuesday in the subprime hearing, we are helping subprime borrowers today … with a reformed, modernized FHA, there’s no doubt in my mind we can assist many more. That’s not to say we are going to throw open the barn door so to speak, we have to protect the solvency of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund so many of these families would still have to go through our eligibility and underwriting criteria.”

Cleaver further adds “There’s a lot of discussion going on about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the size of their portfolio. And it seems to me that the best way to reduce that portfolio, to bring it in to some kind of normality, would be for FHA increase in its share of the market.”

Later, Representative Al Green [D-TX] asks Montgomery “Do you consider yourself, in terms of positioning, are you positioned somewhere between prim and subprime... is that a fair statement?”

To be fair, it seems many of the representatives appeared to have confused FHA’s role as an agency that works in concert with private lenders, originators and brokers, to insure loans while generating income only from mortgage insurance premiums paid by FHA borrowers, with that of the GSEs by whom loans are purchased, held or sold to the secondary market.

Later a panel of real estate industry “experts” from organizations such as the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National association of Home Builders convened to add their take on the FHA changes.

The hearing can be viewed in its entirety now on BNN!

housing+bubble housing bubble federal+reserve fisher bernanke greenspan subprime lenders interest rates economy recession

Copyright © 2007
PaperMoney Blog - www.paperdinero.com
All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer

FHA In The 21st Century

In 2006, Congress attempted to revamp the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in an effort to modernize its service.

At the time, it was argued that certain limits defined for FHA operations by the National Housing Act were outdated and thereby causing the prevalence of FHA insured loans to decline dramatically nationally, with an especially striking fall-off in high cost areas.

In the House of Representatives, a bill sponsored by Representative Patrick Tiberi [R-OH] entitled “FHA Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act of 2006” (H.R. 4804) was passed by an overwhelming margin with 412 Ayes to 4 Nays (16 Present/Not Voting) on July 25 2006.

In the Senate, an identical bill sponsored by James Talent [R-MO], Sen. George Allen [R-VA], Sen. Lincoln Chafee [R-RI] titled “Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2006” (S. 3535) was introduced on June 19 2006 but was not proceeded with in all likeliness due to changing priorities preceding the election that would inevitably see all of its primary sponsors defeated.

It’s important to note that ALL of the above mentioned Congressmen, House and Senate, were supported in their respective 2006 races by the National Association of Realtors Political Action Committee (RPAC), the nations largest PAC.

So, it appeared that at the end of 2006 the Senate bill was dead in the water and likely to stay that way as the Democrat-laden 110th congress focused on other objectives.

Then, toward the end of March 2007, coming on the heels of the subprime meltdown, Senator Hillary Clinton picked up the baton and began to run.

Revitalized and reintroduced as the “21st Century Housing Act” (S. 947), FHA “modernization” is back on the table and this time seems likely to be swiftly passed.

In a press release Senator Clinton stated the following:

"With the meltdown in the subprime housing market, it is clear that there needs to be a real alternative for more working families who want to achieve the dream of home ownership without having to jeopardize their financial futures with a risky mortgage product, … Modernizing the FHA will be an effective way of providing that alternative and I will press in the Senate to take this long overdue step for our families,"

Additionally, Clinton included the following statement from National Association of Realtors President Pat Vredevoogd Combs: “This legislation will strengthen FHA and make it a viable alternative to some of the riskier products that have been marketed to homebuyers,"

It’s important to keep in mind that FHA insures loans through a traditional insurance fund approach collecting both an upfront and annual premiums from the homebuyers.

By lowering current qualifying standards, Congress would allow more loans to meet the criteria needed to be federally insured.

The homebuyer has to pay an additional premium, but because the loan is insured, it will come with a better rate and be more available especially for buyers who would have otherwise been unable to get a loan.

It’s also important to note that throughout the funds history it has vacillated between being self-sustaining and costless to running deficits and costing taxpayers.

The changes now proposed include allowing for 50 amortizing loans, allowing zero down payment, allowing loans that are 100% either the areas median home price or 100% the current conforming limit, and changing the premium fees.

Additionally, although the maximum premium fees have increased, there is inserted text that appears to suggest that the Secretary (of HUD) is able to create new initiatives at any time and even possibly waive premiums for some borrowers.

Given the unprecedented boom seen in the nations housing markets and now the equally impressive bust, it seems imprudent to be endorsing any program that may serve to assist “homebuyers” in stretching to afford dramatically overvalued homes.

It seems now more than ever there should be a moratorium on Congressional tinkering allowing home prices to come back into line with the fundamentals (income, rents, etc.) that traditionally underpin them.

The only reason FHA currently appears to be defunct is that home values swelled well far beyond the range of FHA’s mandate but as we all now know, the bubble swelling is over.

It was only a little over 5 years ago that the FHA program was being heralded for it’s financial soundness and surpluses so much so that administrators slashed premiums and fee schedules.

The primary changes to the existing National Housing Act are as follows:

• Increases the maximum limit for mortgage maturity term from 35 years to 50 years of amortization.
• Decreases the minimum down payment on a home from 3% to 0%.
• For single family homes, increases the eligibility limit to 100% (from 95%) median home price or 100% (from 87%) of the current conforming loan limit
• Allows for more flexibility in determining the up-front insurance premium based on a percentage of the loan principle and the discretion of the program as well as increasing the maximum premium to 3% from of loan principle from the prior 2.25%.
• Increases the annual premium maximum from .5% to 1% of the remaining insured principle balance.
• Increases the eligibility limit for multi-family home purchases.
• Increases the capital ratio of the insurance fund from 2% to 3%.

As usual, let Senator Clinton know what your take is on this topic by emailing her office or if you agree with the sentiment, simply email a link to this post.

housing+bubble housing bubble federal+reserve fisher bernanke greenspan subprime lenders interest rates economy recession

Copyright © 2007
PaperMoney Blog - www.paperdinero.com
All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer

Bailin’ out the Bubble?

On Wednesday, the Senate Joint Economic Committee (JEC), chaired by New York Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, released a report entitled “Sheltering Neighborhoods from the Subprime Foreclosure Storm” that both presents a dire outlook for millions of homeowners nationwide as well as attempts to set the stage for possible federal legislative action.

Although the report presents a fairly accurate account of the issues surrounding both the subprime situation as well as various aspects of predatory lending, it clearly falls short of fully recognizing the true depth and breadth of the coming wave of foreclosures and wrongly places the burden of helping to mitigate that torrent on the shoulders of taxpayers.

Essentially taking a “where all in it together” position by linking the interests of the lender, homeowner, neighbors and local government which it calls the “stakeholders”, the report attempts to define both the actual dollar cost of a foreclosure as well as the cost of preventing one.

This isn’t an altogether a bad concept in that it is certainly true that the “stakeholders” mentioned are all effected, and in fact, recent studies by the Federal Reserve bank of Chicago suggest that there is even a strong correlation between foreclosures and increased rates of violent crime.

But what this really highlights is that foreclosures are local events, effecting local economies, and as such are probably best handled, at least initially, by the state and local governments in which they occur.

To be fair, the report never explicitly suggests that there should be a wholesale bailout of bad loans and furthermore only proposes federal assistance to existing local community-based non-profit organization that have proven track records in foreclosure prevention.

The foreclosure mitigation suggested by the report is limited to assisting with the costs associated to refinancing to fixed rate loans as well as funding counseling and possible legal services for borrowers that experienced more egregious predatory circumstances.

Never the less, by going over the head of state and local governments, there is a clear risk of circumventing the responsibility and value that government entities at the state and local level can have as well as immediately burdening the federal taxpayer with the cost.

For example, in early 2006, amidst growing numbers of foreclosures and even larger numbers of delinquencies clearly originating from questionable lending practices, a series of state Attorneys General successfully strong-armed Ameriquest Mortgage into providing $295 million in compensation, $30 million in state restitution and a commitment to strengthen lending standards in exchange for dropping inquiries into its questionable business practices.

Using the dollar estimate for foreclosure mitigation as outlined in the JEC report, these awards alone could have provided the proposed assistance for 98,484 individual homeowners.

Keep in mind, these were awards from only one lender.

If state governments, who are in many ways particularly well suited to bring legal action to corporate entities operating within their borders, were to target ALL the players involved in the food chain of loose lending, from mortgage brokers and lenders to the Wall Street financial institutions who effectively encouraged the majority of questionable lending practices, it would leave the financial burden squarely on the shoulders of those who caused it.

This could easily be achieved by examining the data collected by local and national mortgage banking associations as it relates to foreclosure events to see the clear patterns of questionable, predatory and fraudulent activities on the part of mortgage brokers and lenders.

The report also fails to recognize the true scale of the coming wave of foreclosures limiting its analysis to the subprime market which is likely to be only the tip of a vastly larger iceberg providing yet another reason why it would be unfair to burden the taxpayer alone with the cost of the repairs.

On a more dangerous note, the report supports the revamping of FHA, apparently as has been specified by the yet to be fully passed FHA Modernization Act, as well as funding and tasking FHA with the responsibility of overseeing a “rescue fund” allocated for purchase of failed mortgage loan portfolios.

This may be the worst recommendation of all as it effectively makes the federal government, i.e. you, the next great subprime lender by dramatically lower the qualifying standards for FHA loans as well as wrongly tasking HUD with the role of lender of last resort for failed lending institutions.

Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve has, as one of its principle mandates, the role of lender of last resort and is, in fact, prepared for possible systemic failures.

The report then concludes with a series of fairly sound proposals including actions to strengthening lending standards, create a federal anti-predatory lending law, establish a standard for determining a borrower’s ability to pay, and plain language disclosures on mortgage products.

If you agree the sentiment in this post, let Senator Schumer know by either emailing his office with your take on the subject or simply email a link to this post.

housing+bubble housing bubble federal+reserve fisher bernanke greenspan subprime lenders interest rates economy recession

Copyright © 2007
PaperMoney Blog - www.paperdinero.com
All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer