TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The economy is improving
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton September and October expected to be slow. Might want to take profits now. |
I think the market has been overbought. I also have to admit that even I was overtaken by the euphoric rise in the market since March. I think that the levels I mentioned at the start of this thread, Dow over 9000, S&P500 over 1000, and NASDAQ over 2000, are more resistance levels than support levels of a new bull market. The technicals looked like a new bull market and it seems that was all I paid attention to. Now that I'm analyzing hundreds of stock's on fundamentals, it seems the market is overvalued. I expect a pullback for the third quarter, and some of the fourth quarter.
I sold my GME stock for a 2% profit in anticipation of the pullback.
Just bought 4 shares of UltraPro Short S&P 500 ProShares ETF (SPXU). For every 1% the S&P drops, this ETF rises 3%. So if the S&P500 drops just 10%, I make 30% profit. It's very close to its 52 week low. For me, this is a no-brainer.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Tax revenue to the government is down 17%, and government spending is up 21%. Shouldn't spending decrease when less money gets received? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN You do realise that this is the crux of bush�s economic legacy, yeah? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ntrillion/view/ where were you between 2000 and 2008? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss No, I don't. Blaming Bush becomes a weaker argument every day. You do realize that congress controlls the approval of every dime that gets spent, and it's been all Democrat since 2006 right? And you do realize that Obama has committed to more spending in 6 months than all Presidents before him combined right? And you do realize that Bush had nothing to do with the 2009 Fiscal Year budget (which dwarfed any of Bush's) right? And you realize that Obama promised that spending a trillion dollars on a stimulus would result in no greater unemployment rate than 8% right? I don't see Bush still increasing spending at a higher percentage rate than received tax revenue either.... do you? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss No, I don't. Blaming Bush becomes a weaker argument every day. You do realize that congress controlls the approval of every dime that gets spent, and it's been all Democrat since 2006 right? And you do realize that Obama has committed to more spending in 6 months than all Presidents before him combined right? And you do realize that Bush had nothing to do with the 2009 Fiscal Year budget (which dwarfed any of Bush's) right? And you realize that Obama promised that spending a trillion dollars on a stimulus would result in no greater unemployment rate than 8% right? |
either you're really stupid, deliberately ignoring the point, or you're really really stupid.| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss I don't see Bush still increasing spending at a higher percentage rate than received tax revenue either.... do you? |
legalize it, problem solved.
oh and the next time you make another one of your politically charged threads that ultimately turns into a semantics debate over economic policy or a bipartisan pissing contest, put it in the political forum, where it belongs
| quote: |
| Originally posted by saluyamo GREEN SHOOTS |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Max Thomson right, because you folk down under know SO MUCH about the crumbling American empire. let me tell you, I live in the midwestern united states where the effects of this dreadful economic clusterf*ck aren't boiled down to a single keyword bernanke drops on national tv, or something you read about it on some newfangled economist blog. no, its a brutish reality defined by urban decay, open-air drug markets, and a lack of basic services for an inordinate amount of people. all this in the most wealthiest country in the world, so don't tell me about the green shoots, come here and go to Indiana and tell me how much the economy is improving. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Max Thomson right, because you folk down under know SO MUCH about the crumbling American empire. let me tell you, I live in the midwestern united states where the effects of this dreadful economic clusterf*ck aren't boiled down to a single keyword bernanke drops on national tv, or something you read about it on some newfangled economist blog. no, its a brutish reality defined by urban decay, open-air drug markets, and a lack of basic services for an inordinate amount of people. all this in the most wealthiest country in the world, so don't tell me about the green shoots, come here and go to Indiana and tell me how much the economy is improving. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I don�t know why I bother sometimes either you're really stupid, deliberately ignoring the point, or you're really really stupid.if you had the first clue about what i was talking about then you would know the answer to this question is an unreserved "yes". |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Gotta spend money to make money, sadly we are embroiled in two massive and expensive wars, that even though they are winding down now have persisted for 8 years, almost as long as major combat operations in Vietnam. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Max Thomson legalize it, problem solved. oh and the next time you make another one of your politically charged threads that ultimately turns into a semantics debate over economic policy or a bipartisan pissing contest, put it in the political forum, where it belongs |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss If there are positive signs of economic improvement, it is in spite of Obama's direction, not because of it. I get what you're saying though.... it's just juvenile to continue to blame Bush for everything. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss If there are positive signs of economic improvement, it is in spite of Obama's direction, not because of it. I get what you're saying though.... it's just juvenile to continue to blame Bush for everything. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Ha! Bush's fumbles will affect us for years to come. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Well im not, im just highlighting the fact that you�re much MUCH louder in denouncing obama�s measures during the cr�me de la cr�me of financial crises, than you were when bush made plenty of unforgivable economic errors during a period of relative stability, growth and prosperity. His Medicaid promise to the American people (perhaps just seniors? I forget) regarding the subsidisation of medication will be a cost to the taxpayer FOREVER, and it will be a cost that increases every single year. Now, not that I have a problem with subsidised pharmaceuticals, but you�ve gotta have a way to pay for it. |
| quote: |
| His tax cuts whilst increasing spending is also something worth noting. He rubber-stamped just about every spending measure from congress. |
| quote: |
| Now, im sure as hell not blaming bush for the economic meltdown, but a sizeable portion of the deficit IS his fault, and he doesn�t have the economic catastrophe to mitigate that fact beyond his TARP measures (of which I am in total support). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Dude I'm with you on that. You forget that I haven't been on TA for more than about 15 months... so if you didn't hear me going bananas on Bush it was only because I wasn't around. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss To a degree, perhaps. But not nearly as much as Clinton's multi-cultural obsessed administration that brought us the wonderful "Community Reinvestment Act"... the true culprit of the housing bubble and the Fannie/Freddie debacle, forcing banks to lend money to fucks that couldn't pay it back. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Just bought 4 shares of UltraPro Short S&P 500 ProShares ETF (SPXU). For every 1% the S&P drops, this ETF rises 3%. So if the S&P500 drops just 10%, I make 30% profit. It's very close to its 52 week low. For me, this is a no-brainer. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss As I said on page 2 of this thread, look what happened during Bush's term... tax cuts spurred activity and crazy investment/growth. As a result, the tax revenue to the government was the highest in 20+ years, and corporations paid more in taxes to the govt. than ever. Look where that graph is today. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss To a degree, perhaps. But not nearly as much as Clinton's multi-cultural obsessed administration that brought us the wonderful "Community Reinvestment Act"... the true culprit of the housing bubble and the Fannie/Freddie debacle, forcing banks to lend money to fucks that couldn't pay it back. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by fbgdavidson I was looking at this and the sister ETF today, seems they have only been trading a month or so. I've made a lot of my gains lately on DDM, the 200% version. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss To a degree, perhaps. But not nearly as much as Clinton's multi-cultural obsessed administration that brought us the wonderful "Community Reinvestment Act"... the true culprit of the housing bubble and the Fannie/Freddie debacle, forcing banks to lend money to fucks that couldn't pay it back. |
| quote: |
| Federal Reserve Governor Randall S. Kroszner At the Confronting Concentrated Poverty Policy Forum, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. December 3, 2008 Evidence on CRA and the Subprime Crisis Over the years, the Federal Reserve has prepared two reports for the Congress that provide information on the performance of lending to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods--populations that are the focus of the CRA.3 These studies found that lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions. Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses. Rather, the law has encouraged banks to be aware of lending opportunities in all segments of their local communities as well as to learn how to undertake such lending in a safe and sound manner. Recently, Federal Reserve staff has undertaken more specific analysis focusing on the potential relationship between the CRA and the current subprime crisis. This analysis was performed for the purpose of assessing claims that the CRA was a principal cause of the current mortgage market difficulties. For this analysis, the staff examined lending activity covering the period that corresponds to the height of the subprime boom.4 The research focused on two basic questions. First, we asked what share of originations for subprime loans is related to the CRA. The potential role of the CRA in the subprime crisis could either be large or small, depending on the answer to this question. We found that the loans that are the focus of the CRA represent a very small portion of the subprime lending market, casting considerable doubt on the potential contribution that the law could have made to the subprime mortgage crisis. Second, we asked how CRA-related subprime loans performed relative to other loans. Once again, the potential role of the CRA could be large or small, depending on the answer to this question. We found that delinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans; as such, differences in performance between CRA-related subprime lending and other subprime lending cannot lie at the root of recent market turmoil. In analyzing the available data, we focused on two distinct metrics: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question concerning loan originations, we wanted to know which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.5 This analysis allowed us to determine what fraction of subprime lending could be related to the CRA. Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the CRA. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions--that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.6 Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis. Of course, loan originations are only one path that banking institutions can follow to meet their CRA obligations. They can also purchase loans from lenders not covered by the CRA, and in this way encourage more of this type of lending. The data also suggest that these types of transactions have not been a significant factor in the current crisis. Specifically, less than 2 percent of the higher-priced and CRA-credit-eligible mortgage originations sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions. I now want to turn to the second question concerning how CRA-related subprime lending performed relative to other types of lending. To address this issue, we looked at data on subprime and alt-A mortgage delinquencies in lower-income neighborhoods and compared them with those in middle- and higher-income neighborhoods to see how CRA-related loans performed.7 An overall comparison revealed that the rates for all subprime and alt-A loans delinquent 90 days or more is high regardless of neighborhood income.8 This result casts further doubt on the view that the CRA could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis. Unfortunately, the available data on loan performance do not let us distinguish which specific loans in lower-income areas were related to the CRA. As noted earlier, institutions not covered by the CRA extended many loans to borrowers in lower-income areas. Also, some lower-income lending by institutions subject to the law was outside their local communities and unlikely to have been motivated by the CRA. To learn more about the relative performance of CRA-related lending, we conducted more-detailed analyses to try to focus on performance differences that might truly arise as a consequence of the rule as opposed to other factors. Attempting to adjust for other relevant factors is challenging but worthwhile to try to assess the performance of CRA-related lending. In one such analysis, we compared loan delinquency rates in neighborhoods that are right above and right below the CRA neighborhood income eligibility threshold. In other words, we compared loan performance by borrowers in two groups of neighborhoods that should not be very different except for the fact that the lending in one group received special attention under the CRA. When we conducted this analysis, we found essentially no difference in the performance of subprime loans in Zip codes that were just below or just above the income threshold for the CRA.9 The results of this analysis are not consistent with the contention that the CRA is at the root of the subprime crisis, because delinquency rates for subprime and alt-A loans in neighborhoods just below the CRA-eligibility threshold are very similar to delinquency rates on loans just above the threshold, hence not the subject of CRA lending. To gain further insight into the potential relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis, we also compared the recent performance of subprime loans with mortgages originated and held in portfolio under the affordable lending programs operated by NeighborWorks America (NWA). As a member of the board of directors of the NWA, I am quite familiar with its lending activities. The NWA has partnered with many CRA-covered banking institutions to originate and hold mortgages made predominantly to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods. So, to the extent that such loans are representative of CRA-lending programs in general, the performance of these loans is helpful in understanding the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis. We found that loans originated under the NWA program had a lower delinquency rate than subprime loans.10 Furthermore, the loans in the NWA affordable lending portfolio had a lower rate of foreclosure than prime loans. The result that the loans in the NWA portfolio performed better than subprime loans again casts doubt on the contention that the CRA has been a significant contributor to the subprime crisis. The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.11 Two key points emerge from all of our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA- related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, as I stated earlier, we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Another thing, the CRA had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis... http://www.federalreserve.gov/newse...er20081203a.htm |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.