well looks like asians helping us out some and catching a bid no fireworks over there tonight pretty dull
yen carry trade getting back on track now with yen selling
asia going mostly green
and us futures rebounding some but still negative
anyway till tomorrow
yen carry trade getting back on track now with yen selling
asia going mostly green
and us futures rebounding some but still negative
anyway till tomorrow
one more hot off the wire
guess they decided to report around midnight hoping nobody would notice :nono5:
loss 2.3 billion, market cap 1.75 billion
:monsters-
----------------------------
MBIA Posts Biggest Loss Amid Slump on Securities It Guaranteed
Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- MBIA Inc., the world's largest bond insurer, posted its biggest-ever quarterly loss and said it is considering new ways to raise capital after a slump in the value of subprime-mortgage securities the company guaranteed.
The fourth-quarter net loss was $2.3 billion, or $18.61 a share, raising concern the Armonk, New York-based company will lose its Aaa rating at Moody's Investors Service. The loss came a day after FGIC Corp.'s insurance unit became the third company to be stripped of its AAA credit rating.
MBIA is seeking to convince Moody's to retain the Aaa on its insurance unit as Chief Executive Officer Gary Dunton tries to shore up capital. Without the Aaa stamp, MBIA would be unable to lend a top rating to new securities, crippling its guarantee business and throwing ratings on $652 billion of debt into doubt.
''In the absence of a credible bailout plan, I think investors and issuers need to assume that MBIA, along with all of the other companies, will face continuing, worsening downgrade pressure all year,'' said Matt Fabian, a managing director at Concord, Massachusetts-based consulting firm Municipal Market Advisors.
Excluding writedowns and some other items, the loss was $3.30 a share, MBIA said today in a statement distributed by Business Wire. The average analyst estimate from a Bloomberg survey was for a loss of $2.98.
guess they decided to report around midnight hoping nobody would notice :nono5:
loss 2.3 billion, market cap 1.75 billion
:monsters-
----------------------------
MBIA Posts Biggest Loss Amid Slump on Securities It Guaranteed
Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- MBIA Inc., the world's largest bond insurer, posted its biggest-ever quarterly loss and said it is considering new ways to raise capital after a slump in the value of subprime-mortgage securities the company guaranteed.
The fourth-quarter net loss was $2.3 billion, or $18.61 a share, raising concern the Armonk, New York-based company will lose its Aaa rating at Moody's Investors Service. The loss came a day after FGIC Corp.'s insurance unit became the third company to be stripped of its AAA credit rating.
MBIA is seeking to convince Moody's to retain the Aaa on its insurance unit as Chief Executive Officer Gary Dunton tries to shore up capital. Without the Aaa stamp, MBIA would be unable to lend a top rating to new securities, crippling its guarantee business and throwing ratings on $652 billion of debt into doubt.
''In the absence of a credible bailout plan, I think investors and issuers need to assume that MBIA, along with all of the other companies, will face continuing, worsening downgrade pressure all year,'' said Matt Fabian, a managing director at Concord, Massachusetts-based consulting firm Municipal Market Advisors.
Excluding writedowns and some other items, the loss was $3.30 a share, MBIA said today in a statement distributed by Business Wire. The average analyst estimate from a Bloomberg survey was for a loss of $2.98.
keep finding more good stuff
based on median income
nationally homes are 35% overpriced
man califorians are stretched so thin and that state already having budget issues i believe
stay away from cali yikes
---------------------------
What Median Home Prices Would Look Like If the Bubble Never Happened
Jan 28, 2008
How much should you be paying for a home? The answer is easy to calculate if you understand the connection between median home prices and median incomes.
Historically, median home prices and median incomes have always shared a close relationship. From the mid-1970s to 2001, the historical ratio of median housing value vs. median household income was consistently between 2.6 and 3.0.
What this essentially means is that median home prices were (on average) 2.8x the median household income for the last 30 years. Using this 2.8 formula, it is very easy to estimate what median home prices would be if the most recent bubble never happened.
U.S. Median Home Prices
Current Median* What the Median Should Be % Difference
$208,400 $134,692 35%
Median household income information is not yet available for 2007, so we will be using median household income data for 2006 in this example and in the following examples. It should make very little difference since household incomes increased by 4 percent at the most (and that's a very generous estimate) in 2007.
The median U.S. household income is $48,201, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When we multiply that number by 2.8, we get $134,692. That's what the U.S. median home price should be right now. The actual median home price is about 35 percent higher that that.
Median Home Prices by Region
Region Current Median* What the Median Should Be % Difference
Northeast $258,600 $145,760 44%
Midwest $159,800 $133,941 16%
South $173,400 $122,875 29%
West $309,800 $146,297 53%
It is obvious to most people that we are in the midst of a national housing bubble. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of naysayers who are telling anyone who will listen that there are local bubbles only.
Using the 2.8 formula, it is clear that local bubbles aren't the problem. Median home prices are inflated in every U.S. region. In the West, where the median household income is $52,249, median home prices are more than double what they should be. The situation is similar in the Northeast, where the median household income is $52,057.
Median home prices are not quite as high in the South and the Midwest, where median household incomes are $43,884 and $47,836 respectively. Even so, prices are still 30 percent higher than what they should be in the South and 16 percent higher than what they should be in the Midwest.
California Median Home Prices
Current Median* What the Median Should Be % Difference
$402,000 $158,606 61%
There is no doubt about it. California was hit hardest by the housing bubble. Although prices have always been slightly elevated in the state, they grew by leaps and bounds during the housing boom.
The result is that home prices are 61 percent higher than they should be given California's median household income of $56,645. In some areas of the state, such as San Francisco and Oakland, median home prices are so inflated that they are more than 11 times the median household income.
Will Home Prices Fall?
Absolutely. Prices have already fallen by six percent nationally and by more than 11 percent in the West in a year over year comparison. Home prices must continue to fall for the average American to be able to afford a home.
The real question is: how long will it take?
The U.S. government seems to be doing everything they can to prop up prices. Before you applaud their efforts, it is worth noting that while this could work short term, all it will really do is insure we have a slow fall.
The truth is that propping up prices and prolonging the correction will not solve anything. The Japan Ministry tried to do it during the Japan correction and it was a complete disaster.
All we can really do now is prepare for the fall. It will come and it will hurt. But that's the price that must be paid for allowing the market to become artificially inflated.
based on median income
nationally homes are 35% overpriced
man califorians are stretched so thin and that state already having budget issues i believe
stay away from cali yikes
---------------------------
What Median Home Prices Would Look Like If the Bubble Never Happened
Jan 28, 2008
How much should you be paying for a home? The answer is easy to calculate if you understand the connection between median home prices and median incomes.
Historically, median home prices and median incomes have always shared a close relationship. From the mid-1970s to 2001, the historical ratio of median housing value vs. median household income was consistently between 2.6 and 3.0.
What this essentially means is that median home prices were (on average) 2.8x the median household income for the last 30 years. Using this 2.8 formula, it is very easy to estimate what median home prices would be if the most recent bubble never happened.
U.S. Median Home Prices
Current Median* What the Median Should Be % Difference
$208,400 $134,692 35%
Median household income information is not yet available for 2007, so we will be using median household income data for 2006 in this example and in the following examples. It should make very little difference since household incomes increased by 4 percent at the most (and that's a very generous estimate) in 2007.
The median U.S. household income is $48,201, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When we multiply that number by 2.8, we get $134,692. That's what the U.S. median home price should be right now. The actual median home price is about 35 percent higher that that.
Median Home Prices by Region
Region Current Median* What the Median Should Be % Difference
Northeast $258,600 $145,760 44%
Midwest $159,800 $133,941 16%
South $173,400 $122,875 29%
West $309,800 $146,297 53%
It is obvious to most people that we are in the midst of a national housing bubble. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of naysayers who are telling anyone who will listen that there are local bubbles only.
Using the 2.8 formula, it is clear that local bubbles aren't the problem. Median home prices are inflated in every U.S. region. In the West, where the median household income is $52,249, median home prices are more than double what they should be. The situation is similar in the Northeast, where the median household income is $52,057.
Median home prices are not quite as high in the South and the Midwest, where median household incomes are $43,884 and $47,836 respectively. Even so, prices are still 30 percent higher than what they should be in the South and 16 percent higher than what they should be in the Midwest.
California Median Home Prices
Current Median* What the Median Should Be % Difference
$402,000 $158,606 61%
There is no doubt about it. California was hit hardest by the housing bubble. Although prices have always been slightly elevated in the state, they grew by leaps and bounds during the housing boom.
The result is that home prices are 61 percent higher than they should be given California's median household income of $56,645. In some areas of the state, such as San Francisco and Oakland, median home prices are so inflated that they are more than 11 times the median household income.
Will Home Prices Fall?
Absolutely. Prices have already fallen by six percent nationally and by more than 11 percent in the West in a year over year comparison. Home prices must continue to fall for the average American to be able to afford a home.
The real question is: how long will it take?
The U.S. government seems to be doing everything they can to prop up prices. Before you applaud their efforts, it is worth noting that while this could work short term, all it will really do is insure we have a slow fall.
The truth is that propping up prices and prolonging the correction will not solve anything. The Japan Ministry tried to do it during the Japan correction and it was a complete disaster.
All we can really do now is prepare for the fall. It will come and it will hurt. But that's the price that must be paid for allowing the market to become artificially inflated.
I was having an argument with someone about what the best alternative to falling home rates would be.. taking out an equity loan on a house thats been paid for, or refinancing.. I was arguing that having the home paid for and taking out the equity loan would be the best bet not tying up the home value for the long run if the value dropped..
ex.
Suppose you have a home valued at 340k.. bought for 270k in 2002.. with improvements and other home sales the value increased. Now with current market conditions 340k is a rough estimate. The mortgage note was paid for when the home was appraised at around 320k.. more improvements... there haven't been any recent listings around the area.
Now what would one conclude would be a better option? Getti
ex.
Suppose you have a home valued at 340k.. bought for 270k in 2002.. with improvements and other home sales the value increased. Now with current market conditions 340k is a rough estimate. The mortgage note was paid for when the home was appraised at around 320k.. more improvements... there haven't been any recent listings around the area.
Now what would one conclude would be a better option? Getti
Budworth.. trying to take into account the current market conditions..
It isn't easy to set a value to my property.. I live in a townhouse.. 3bdr 3bath.. the only one of its kind in my subdivision.. technically its a condo because I have a neighbor upstairs..
It was bought for 265k with closing costs in 2002.. we bought in cheap because it needed several improvements.. similar properties in the area (sub division) but 3br 2ba.. were selling upwards of 300... 315.. 320.. well into 2004ish 2005ish.. then nothing for a while.. I put the value there with improvements (around 50k, crown molding.. hard wood flooring.. restored fireplace and mantle, new appliances)
I don't know what the true value would be, but I was working towards my apprentice license before I perceived the market tanking.. I backed out.. I have my salesperson license though....
What I was arguing is that the home is paid off.. a friend was telling me I should refinance.. and I thought that was a piss poor idea, and thought a home equity loan would a better idea (since I wouldn't be locked into a 15yr or 30yr mortgage.. as far as interest and deductions go I'm sure there would be some value.. but well I think I'm going to be hijacking this thread
sssshit
It isn't easy to set a value to my property.. I live in a townhouse.. 3bdr 3bath.. the only one of its kind in my subdivision.. technically its a condo because I have a neighbor upstairs..
It was bought for 265k with closing costs in 2002.. we bought in cheap because it needed several improvements.. similar properties in the area (sub division) but 3br 2ba.. were selling upwards of 300... 315.. 320.. well into 2004ish 2005ish.. then nothing for a while.. I put the value there with improvements (around 50k, crown molding.. hard wood flooring.. restored fireplace and mantle, new appliances)
I don't know what the true value would be, but I was working towards my apprentice license before I perceived the market tanking.. I backed out.. I have my salesperson license though....
What I was arguing is that the home is paid off.. a friend was telling me I should refinance.. and I thought that was a piss poor idea, and thought a home equity loan would a better idea (since I wouldn't be locked into a 15yr or 30yr mortgage.. as far as interest and deductions go I'm sure there would be some value.. but well I think I'm going to be hijacking this thread
sssshit
Were I in your shoes, and if there are truly few for sale signs in your neighbourhood, I would sell the home now. Stock the cash away in a liquid asset that adjusts for inflation, then consider rebuying the house (or one similar) in a couple of years, at a much lower price. What I would most definitely not do is take out any kind of loan based on your home's current market value, as that number is likely declining, or likely to decline.
arty:
