Der USA Bären-Thread

Home prices fell in the third quarter from year-ago levels in about 80 percent of U.S. metropolitan areas, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday.

 

But home sales continued their climb, with quarterly sales outpacing the second quarter and the previous year's figures, the industry trade group said.

Median prices fell compared to a year earlier in 123 of 153 metro areas, while 30 areas saw prices rise.

The national median price for single-family homes, which make up the bulk of the U.S. housing market, fell 11.2 percent from the same quarter a year earlier to $177,900.

"The decline in the national median price has moderated recently, and a shrinking supply of unsold inventory suggests we are getting closer to price stabilization in many areas, " said Lawrence Yun, the group's chief economist, in a statement. "But we need a steady stream of financially qualified buyers to further reduce inventory and get us to a self-sustaining market."

Prices in Fort Myers, Fla., plunging 40 percent to $98,000 from a year ago, were the worst in the nation. Las Vegas saw its median price tumble almost 35 percent to $138,500 year-over-year.

 

The largest price gain, by contrast, was in Cumberland, Md., where prices jumped 19 percent to $122,100. Davenport, Iowa, followed with an increase of 14 percent to $115,600.

The federal tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time homebuyers helped boost sales in the third quarter. U.S. home sales grew in 45 states from the second quarter, with 28 states posting double-digit gains.

Total quarterly sales hit a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.3 million, up more than 11 percent from 4.76 million in the second quarter.

President Barack Obama signed a bill last week extending and expanding the federal tax credit. Now, buyers who have owned in their current homes for at least five years are eligible for tax credits of up to $6,500. First-time homebuyers — or anyone who hasn't owned a home in the last three years — would still get up to $8,000. To qualify, buyers have to sign a purchase agreement by April 30, 2010, and close by June 30.

Moin,

immerhin scheint Deutschland übermäßig von der Blase in China zu profitieren......

Zumindest wenn man dem Chart von Goldman Sachs glauben schenken darf.....

Hier eine nette charttechnische Studie des größten Monoliners (für evtl. noch nicht Informierte: Kreditausfallversicherer):

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says banks should be broken up before they get too big to fail

While the effort probably averted another Great Depression, it's created a cadre of financial-services behemoths that are too big to fail.

Proposed reforms aim to prevent costly bailouts in future. But critics complain that these reforms could end up doing the opposite, by giving top institutions more-explicit government backing. That, in turn could lead to more risk-taking and even larger companies.
Radical solutions

As the reform proposals are chopped and changed in Congress, more radical solutions to the problem are gaining support.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Oct. 15 that regulators should consider breaking up institutions considered too big to fail.

Such firms can borrow more cheaply than rivals because investors know the government will bail them out. That cuts competition and imperils the financial system, he explained during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

In the late 1990s, Greenspan supported rolling back the Glass-Steagall Act, a Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from owning or working with brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities.

But last month, he said that, while arbitrarily breaking up institutions went against his philosophical bent, something must be done to tackle the too-big-to-fail issue.

Mervyn King, the leader of England's central bank, has his own take on solving the "too big to fail" problem.

Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, recently proposed separating traditional banks, which benefit from government-backed deposit insurance, from riskier market players. He also said it was hard to see why breaking up large financial institutions would be impractical.

"What does seem impractical, however, are the current arrangements," King said. "Anyone who proposed giving government guarantees to retail depositors and other creditors, and then suggested that such funding could be used to finance highly risky and speculative activities, would be thought rather unworldly. But that is where we now are."
'Absence of rules'

The current approach to financial reform is creating uncertainty among investors, because it's not clear what the government and regulators want to do with the industry, according to Nancy Bush, a bank analyst at NAB Research LLC.

Separating commercial banking and investment banking again would be "extreme," but it may be better than the confusion caused by recent regulatory efforts, she explained.

"Somebody should make a decision. We have no rules right now, and in the absence of rules, investors flee," Bush added. "We don't know capital requirements, or who will fail, or how many wounded players will be allowed to limp along, tainting the rest of the industry."

If Glass-Steagall is brought back in a new form, "at least we would know what to expect," she concluded.
Downsizing

Economist Henry Kaufman, a former Salomon Brothers executive who was on the board of Lehman Brothers /quotes/comstock/11i!lehmq (LEHMQ 0.11, 0.00, 0.00%) , favors downsizing institutions so that if they fail, they won't threaten the financial system.

In 1990, the ten largest U.S. financial institutions held about 10% of the country's financial assets. Last year, they held over 60% and the 20 largest probably held at least 80% of financial assets in the nation, Kaufman estimates.

This "financial concentration" gained momentum after Glass-Steagall was repealed and it accelerated again in the past year as the government bailed out the largest institutions, he explained.

"At a minimum, we should have financial public utilities," he said in an interview. "Preferably we should have institutions that are small enough so that when they fail, they just fail."
Cap on assets

Simon Johnson, an MIT professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, reckons there should be caps of roughly $100 billion on the assets of financial institutions and "serious criminal consequences" if firms are caught trying to get around such limits.

That would leave the industry with more, smaller firms with different specialties. But it wouldn't necessarily reduce profitability, he said.

Goldman had almost $900 billion in assets at the end of September. Just over a decade earlier, the firm had a little more than $200 billion in assets, but was still very successful, Johnson explained.

Lehman grew at a similar pace. In late 1998, the firm had $191 billion in assets and by May 30, 2008, a few months before it collapsed, assets stood at $640 billion.

"The lesson of Lehman should not be that the government should have prevented its failure," David Einhorn, head of hedge fund Greenlight Capital, said in a recent speech. "The lesson of Lehman should be that Lehman should not have existed at a scale that allowed it to jeopardize the financial system."

The same logic applies to AIG, Fannie Mae /quotes/comstock/13*!fnm/quotes/nls/fnm (FNM 1.04, -0.01, -0.95%) , Freddie Mac /quotes/comstock/13*!fre/quotes/nls/fre (FRE 1.21, -0.01, -0.82%) , Bear Stearns, Citigroup and "a couple of dozen others," he added.

'Laboratory experiment'

Citigroup, roughly a third owned by the government, is already being broken up, giving investors a preview of how other large financial institutions may be shrunk in future.

"The break-up of some of the banks has already occurred," Bove said. "Citigroup doesn't really exist anymore."

Late Thursday, the company unveiled plans for an IPO of its Primerica business, which sells life insurance, mutual funds, variable annuities and other financial products.

Citigroup sold its Smith Barney brokerage business to Morgan Stanley earlier this year and had already jettisoned most of its insurance operations.

Other businesses sold include its money-management arm, retail bank networks in Germany and Puerto Rico, brokerage, banking and consumer finance operations in Japan, Diner's Club and other credit card portfolios, payment processing businesses in the U.S., India and Brazil, and a controversial energy-trading unit called Phibro.

Businesses that remain on the block include Commercial Credit, The Associates, most of its mortgage, auto and student-loan portfolios and possibly its Mexican bank, Bove said.

Citigroup had $2.4 trillion in assets in September 2007 and this has declined to $1.9 trillion in two years, the analyst noted.

Citigroup has housed all the businesses it doesn't want in Citi Holdings, while the operations it wants to keep are in Citicorp.

The remaining institution will have roughly $1 trillion in assets, with a leading credit-card business, a large retail bank in New York, a medium-sized retail bank in California, a clutch of small private banks globally and a top payment-processing and lending business, Bove said.

"The Treasury Secretary and numerous other bank regulators have spoken repeatedly about the need to gain the power to liquidate companies that pose systemic risks," the analyst wrote in a recent note to investors. "Citigroup is the laboratory experiment to show how it can be done."
Who's next

Bank of America /quotes/comstock/13*!bac/quotes/nls/bac (BAC 15.83, +0.06, +0.38%) , which has also received a lot of government support, is the next candidate to be broken up, Bove said.

The company is a leading retail bank in the U.S., which means it benefits from a large source of government-backed funding in the form of guarantees provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

However, Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch at the height of the financial crisis last year. Merrill is a leading broker and investment bank, with riskier capital markets operations that almost brought it to its knees last year.

Bank of America may come under pressure to sell such capital markets businesses in future, Bove and others said this past week.

Wells Fargo /quotes/comstock/13*!wfc/quotes/nls/wfc (WFC 27.10, -0.41, -1.43%) also got a capital markets business when it acquired struggling rival Wachovia last year. Wells mostly avoided investment banking in the past, focusing instead on mortgages, retail banking and commercial lending. However, the company said earlier this year that it decided to keep Wachovia's capital markets business.

J.P. Morgan Chase /quotes/comstock/13*!jpm/quotes/nls/jpm (JPM 43.69, -0.66, -1.49%) , one of the largest retail and commercial banks in the world, also has a leading investment banking business and is one of the biggest players in the derivatives market.

The capital markets businesses of these institutions have generated big profits this year as equity and credit markets rebounded.

"Depositors are once again financing the whims of Wall Street," James Chanos, head of short-selling hedge fund firm Kynikos Associates, said during an Oct. 22 speech at the University of Virginia.

Shareholders and bankers are reaping the rewards, while depositors bear the risks and taxpayers bear the ultimate risk, he explained.

Bove reckons J.P. Morgan, Wells and Bank of America may all be pressured to sell their capital markets divisions and other riskier businesses.
Goldman, Morgan Stanley

However, if these capital-markets business are separated from their commercial bank owners, many of them would probably still be too big to fail.

Lehman Brothers collapsed partly because it wasn't supported by a more stable source of funding from government-backed retail deposits.

Indeed, Goldman and Morgan Stanley were quickly granted Bank Holding Company status by the Federal Reserve as Lehman filed for bankruptcy. See full story.

The move gave Goldman and Morgan Stanley permanent access to emergency loans from the Fed if they need the money.

In return for that government back-stop, the firms are expected to be more tightly regulated and face more limits on riskier activities. However, Goldman has followed a business-as-usual strategy this year, generating record quarterly profit. See full story.

Bush of NAB Research reckons Goldman and Morgan Stanley should have their bank holding powers taken away.

"That has given them an explicit government guarantee by allowing them to borrow at Federal Reserve's window," she said. "Those companies need to be on their own, period, and that should lessen risk taking."

However, the firms would probably still be too big to fail., Kaufman said, adding that the only way to change this is to shrink the firms and limit many of their activities.

Kaufman recommends limiting or banning proprietary trading, which is trading investment banks do with their own money.

Limits should also be imposed on the amount of money they can invest in outside affiliates and the amount of assets they can securitize, Kaufman said. He also thinks their participation in the derivatives market should be limited.

While Goldman has thrived this year, some analysts are concerned about the future, even if the firm retains its Bank Holding Company status.

"Goldman will face a significant challenge as the firm brings itself into compliance with the new regulatory rules for a Bank Holding company which we believe will constrain its core trading businesses," Brad Hintz, a securities industry analyst at Bernstein Research, wrote in a note to investors in late September.
Exemptions

Still, Goldman has said it's in the process of converting to a financial holding company structure, which is different from bank holding company status, Hintz noted.

Financial holding companies are given a longer leash, allowing them to underwrite securities offerings and get involved in a wide range of trading and merchant-banking activities, the analyst explained.

Under these rules, firms are even allowed to trade commodities so long as they entered the market before 1999. Goldman bought its commodities-trading arm J. Aron & Co. in 1981. See spotlight on Goldman's commodity business.

Alistair Barr is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco.

In a speech in Phoenix, Yellen said the most recent economic data suggest that the U.S. could be about to experience another so-called jobless recovery. The past two recessions, in 1991 and 2001, were followed by jobless recoveries.

"Things seem to be shaping up similarly this time around," Yellen said.

"I believe the overall economic recovery is likely to be gradual and remain vulnerable to shocks," Yellen said.

With such a slow rebound, unemployment could stay high for several years to come, Yellen said. The nation's jobless rate for October was reported at 10.2%, the highest seen in 26 years. See Economic Report.

One of two goals that Congress has set for the Fed is to keep unemployment low. The other goal is to keep prices stable.

Economic slack is putting downward pressure on prices, and inflation is below the Fed's target, Yellen said.
Ripple effect

For his part, Lockhart focused on the threat that bad loans in commercial real estate can pose for the recovery.

Small banks are struggling as more of these loans default, the Atlanta Fed official said.

As a result, small businesses -- an important engine of job growth -- are unable to get credit they need to expand, Lockhart said.

The economy should be able to expand despite the troubled non-residential loan sector, Lockhart said.

"As the recovery develops, the commercial real estate problem will be a headwind, but not a show-stopper in my view," Lockhart told the Urban Land Institute during a speech in Atlanta.

However, in light of the credit constraints confronting small businesses, "my current outlook for employment is one of very slow net job gains once the trend reverses, in a likelihood sometime next year," Lockhart said.

"At this juncture, it's hard to be encouraged about a fast rebound in job growth," he said.

www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/...tax-revenues-1964-2009/print/

lach' mich jedesmal schlapp bei diesen Statements a la "interest rates would have to rise at some point in the future". Die Future sieht momentan so aus, als dass die Fed aktuell ihr Balance Sheet moderat expanded hat, wahrscheinlich sind auch mittlerweile die Schafzimmergardinen von Hank Paulsons Oma monetarisiert worden. Wann wollen die Boyz denn die Zinsen anheben? Vielleicht noch vor 2016? Das Handelsbilanzdefizit weitet sich aktuell ebenfalls aus, wo wollen die denn noch hin? Unbelievable!

Nicht nur von den Medien vorgegaukelt... Nein, Manhatten steht tatsaechlich noch.
Bin beruflich bis Donnerstag hier und werd mal nach dem rechten schauen.

Wobei der Schein ja meistens doch truegt. Als ich das letzte mal hier war, im Juli 2008, hab ich noch die schoenen frischen Schnittblumen in den Washington Mutual Filialen bewundert und gedacht, dass es denen dann ja so schlecht gar nicht gehen kann... ;-)

Investors again greeted a Treasury auction with a fair amount of enthusiasm, buying up a record $25 billion in benchmark 10-year notes.

 

The auction fetched a high yield of 3.47 percent, about spot-on with the rate where the notes traded just before the auction. The bid-to-cover ratio reflected a healthy $2.81 for every $1 auctioned.

The results were a bit less enthusiastic than Monday's auction, which saw robust demand for an issuing of three-year notes.

Prices on the 10-year held steady at around 4/32 higher and the same 3.47 percent yield, down two notches from the 3.49 percent late Monday.

Treasurys climbed earlier as investors awaited the second leg of this week's $81 billion quarterly refunding.

A combination of factors fueled a safety bid for Treasurys—lower U.S. stock index futures, jitters over Britain's credit-worthiness and weaker-than-expected overseas economic data, analysts said.

 

This climate should bode favorably for longer-dated U.S. government securities despite lingering concerns over the United States' burgeoning deficit and its coveted AAA credit rating.

"There appears to be a distinct desire among investors to stay current and this new 10-year issue will be the current 10-year over the turn (of the year)," said Aaron Kohli, an interest rate strategist with RBS Securities in Stamford, Conn.

In the "when-issue" market, traders had expected the yield on the new 10-year notes to clear at 3.443 percent, compared with 3.437 percent on the 10-year notes actively trading in the open market.

The price on 30-year bonds, the longest government debt maturity, was up well off its highs earlier at 4/32. Their yield, which moves inversely to their price was 4.39 percent, down from 4.40 percent late Monday.

Investor confidence in Treasurys was supported by comments Fitch Ratings made about Britain. David Riley, the rating agency's co-head of global sovereign ratings, told Reuters Television that among the major economies, Britain was most at risk of losing its AAA rating, while there was no such near-term risk for the United States.

This week's refunding is expected to raise roughly $43 billion in new cash to help the U.S. government pay for its stimulus program and financial bailouts. The Treasury has faced a drop in tax receipts due to the recession.

 

To be sure, some analysts have more a cautious outlook on the 10-year note sale and the $16 billion 30-year bond auction Thursday, given a mediocre reception to the 10-year auction at the August refunding.

"This auction will be challenging," said MF Global Research analysts wrote in a research note.

The U.S. bond market will be closed Wednesday in observance of Veterans Day.

With another day light on data, traders will turn to Federal Reserve officials for clues on the economy.

The voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee who will speak Tuesday include Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart, San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen and Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo.

Chart via JessesCrossRoadsCafe. Wie heißt es doch so schön, es ist ein "Long-Term-Trend" ;-)))

Na, der Cartoon, der hat was ;-))))

haben keine kastrierte Spitze!

war nur Zeit für die Minirambos, die den Dow nach dem  Anstieg von gestern heute etwas pisakten. Nun ist Zeit, wieder Long zu gehen.

die wir in den letzten 3-4 Monaten sehen, daher ist aktuell ein Shorten des DOW mMn völliger Niff-Naff.

Der DOW geht mal 2 bis 3 Prozentpünktchen in die Knie, die Bären marschieren freudig erregt los….. und Bäng, crushed again. Der beigefügte Chart verdeutlicht das auch recht gut.

Beim DAX gab es zumindest ja mal ab Mitte Oktober bis zum November-Beginn 'nen netten 500 Punkte-Downer ansonsten war ebenfalls kaum so "richtiges" Bären-Futter vorfindbar, um sich mit Shorts "Winterspeck" anzufuttern.

Die Bären warten noch alle am Bahnsteig auf den passenden Zug, der läuft aber möglicherweise erst in 2010 ein. Die Fed hatte da wohl kurzfristig die Fahrpläne geändert :-((

Damit wir uns richtig verstehen: Ich bin und bleibe ein fundamentaler Bär. Wenn ich jedoch das Casino betrete, so binde ich mir stets vorher eine Krawatte um ;-)))

Diese Frau besitzt nicht nur Sachverstand, sondern auch den Mut, die offiziellen Statements der Fed zu "modifizieren".

www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/...on-economic-outlook.html

noch sehr starken Anstieg traue ich dem DOW allerdings nicht zu.  Bei 10300 wird´s ungemütlich mit Longs.

Noch einmal tief Luft holen und dann Ausatmen...

US-Arbeitslosigkeit nähert sich vorläufigem Hochpunkt

Veröffentlich am 10.11.2009 11:23:00 Uhr von Robert Rethfeld
 

---

Seit dem Jahr 1995 wird vom US-Arbeitsministerium eine Statistik geführt, die als "alternative Arbeitslosenquote" bezeichnet wird. Sie enthält - neben den offiziell Arbeitslosen - auch diejenigen, die momentan nicht arbeiten und nicht auf Arbeitssuche sind, obwohl sie sich in der jüngeren Vergangenheit immer wieder nach Jobs erkundigt haben. Zudem enthält sie die Arbeitnehmer, die Teilzeit arbeiten müssen, obwohl sie Vollzeit arbeiten wollen.

 

Während die reguläre US-Arbeitlosenquote im Oktober auf 10,2 Prozent stieg, befindet sich die alternative US-Arbeitslosenquote (roter Verlauf) im Oktober bei 17,5 Prozent.

Diese Quote erscheint auch deshalb wichtig, weil ja nicht nur die tatsächlich Arbeitslosen, sondern auch diejenigen, die nur Teilzeit arbeiten dürfen - obwohl sie üblicherweise auf Vollzeitarbeit angewiesen sind - das Konsumverhalten in den USA insgesamt negativ beeinflussen. Jedoch stellt sich die folgende Sentiment-Frage: Diese Daten sind seit 1995 rückwirkend ab dem Jahr 1994 Bestandteil der offiziellen US-Statistik. Sie werden jedoch erst in dieser Situation von Zeitungen wie der New York Times analytisch aufgearbeitet. In dem verlinkten Artikel wird das Ausmaß der aktuellen Arbeitslosenquote mit derjenigen der großen Depression in den 30er Jahren verglichen. Hallo? Ein Vergleich mit den 30er Jahren scheint doch ziemlich gewagt. Damals betrug die "normale" Arbeitslosenquote in der Spitze bis zu 25 Prozent (siehe Chart).

 

Diese Sentimentsicht legt nahe, dass aktuell ein zumindest vorläufiger Höchststand der US-Arbeitslosenquote erreicht sein sollte. Bestätigt wird eine solche Sichtweise durch die seit April rückläufige Zahl der Erstanträge auf US-Arbeitslosenhilfe.

 

Betrachtet man die Korrelation zwischen den Erstanträgen und der US-Arbeitslosenquote, so wird die voraus laufende Funktion der Erstanträge erkennbar (nächster Chart).

 

Der Zeitverzug beträgt zwischen zwei und dreizehn Monaten, wobei der Median sich im Bereich von vier bis fünf Monaten bewegt. Seit Anfang April sind bereits sieben Monate vergangen. Ergo: Es wird Zeit für ein baldiges Top an den US-Arbeitsmärkten. Angesichts unserer Erwartung einer Art Double-Dip-Rezession dürfte dieses Hoch zwar nur vorläufig sein, aber es sollte doch für einige Monate Bestand haben.

Historisch ist die Entwicklung der Arbeitslosenquote der beste Indikator für anstehende Leitzinserhöhungen gewesen (nächster Chart).

 

Wenn die monatliche Arbeitslosenquote einen oberen Wendepunkt erreicht hatte, dann reagierte die FED mit leichter Zeitverzögerung. Mit Blick auf die Entwicklung der Komponente Beschäftigung in den monatlichen Einkaufsmanagerindizes ist ein Aufbau an Beschäftigung bis dato nur im ISM Index für das verarbeitende Gewerbe (Anstieg von 46,2 auf 53,2 deutet auf Beschäftigungsaufbau hin) zu beobachten gewesen, das Momentum des Arbeitsplatzabbaus hat jedoch auch in den anderen Einkaufsmanagerindizes nachgelassen. Im für die Volkswirtschaft wichtigeren Dienstleistungssektor ergibt sich noch keine Verbesserung bei der Beschäftigungskomponente.

Die ganze Diskussion um eine "Exit-Strategie" ist aber solange als eine Nebelbombe anzusehen, solange die Notenbanken weiteres Geld in den Kreislauf pumpen. Die FED wird bis Ende März 2010 weitere Anleihen im Volumen von bis zu 500 Mrd. US-Dollar kaufen, die englische Notenbank hat in der vergangenen Woche eine geringe Aufstockung ihres Wertpapierkaufvolumens um 25 Mrd. Pfund bekannt gegeben (Abschluss des Programms in 3 Monaten). Der Trend der monetären Einschussphase hält bis über den Jahreswechsel an.

Fazit: Wir nehmen an, dass sich in den kommenden zwei bis drei Monaten eine leicht positive Tendenz im Bezug auf die US-Arbeitslosenquote ergeben dürfte. Das sollte den Blick jedoch nicht dafür verstellen, dass die US-Arbeitslosigkeit im Zuge einer Double-Dip-Rezession bereits ab dem Frühjahr/Sommer kommenden Jahres erneut zu steigen beginnen dürfte. Verfolgen Sie die Entwicklung der Finanzmärkte in unserer handelstäglichen Frühausgabe.

Anmerkung: Der "Traders Award" wird in diesem Jahr zum sechsten Mal vergeben. Wir freuen uns über die Nominierung. Heute ist der letzte Tag der Abstimmung. Natürlich würde ich mich über Ihre Stimme freuen. Weitere Informationen und der Link zur Wahl unter traders-award.de


© Robert Rethfeld
www.wellenreiter-invest.de

www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/...k-mortgage-insurers.html
From the Ambac 10-Q:

   While management believes that Ambac will have sufficient liquidity to satisfy its needs through the second quarter of 2011, no guarantee can be given that it will be able to pay all of its operating expenses and debt service obligations thereafter, including maturing principal in the amount of $143,000 in August 2011. In addition, it is possible its liquidity may run out prior to the second quarter of 2011. Ambac is developing strategies to address its liquidity needs; such strategies may include a negotiated restructuring of its debt through a prepackaged bankruptcy proceeding. No assurances can be given that Ambac will be successful in executing any or all of its strategies. If Ambac is unable to execute these strategies, it will consider seeking bankruptcy protection without agreement concerning a plan of reorganization with major creditor groups.
   emphasis added

Apparently the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance will rule on Ambac’s statutory capital by November 16th. (ht JA)

And from Freddie Mac's 10-Q:

   We have institutional credit risk relating to the potential insolvency or non-performance of mortgage insurers that insure single-family mortgages we purchase or guarantee. As a guarantor, we remain responsible for the payment of principal and interest if a mortgage insurer fails to meet its obligations to reimburse us for claims. If any of our mortgage insurers that provides credit enhancement fails to fulfill its obligation, we could experience increased credit-related costs and a possible reduction in the fair values associated with our PCs or Structured Securities.
   ...
   Based upon currently available information, we expect that all of our mortgage insurance counterparties will continue to pay all claims as due in the normal course for the near term except for claims obligations of Triad that are partially deferred after June 1, 2009, under order of Triad’s state regulator. We believe that several of our mortgage insurance counterparties are at risk of falling out of compliance with regulatory capital requirements, which may result in regulatory actions that could threaten our ability to receive future claims payments, and negatively impact our access to mortgage insurance for high LTV loans. Further, one or more of these mortgage insurers, over the remainder of 2009 or in the first half of 2010, could lack sufficient capital to pay claims and face suspension under Freddie Mac’s eligibility requirements for mortgage insurers.

MBIA loses $728 million as slowdown hits bond insurer
www.marketwatch.com/story/...ting-after-hours-stock-2009-11-09
....Now that house prices have fallen and foreclosures continue to mount, MBIA and Ambac have been forced to pay out on some of those guarantees. Such payments led to most bond insurers losing their crucial AAA ratings last year, making it more difficult to sell new guarantees.

MBIA and Ambac have been trying to launch new bond insurers that focus on the steadier municipal-bond insurance market and are free of the toxic-legacy exposures of their current bond-insurance businesses.

However, in June Ambac postponed its plan to launch a new bond insurer because it had difficulty raising new capital for the project. Ambac reported a $2.2 billion quarterly net profit last week, but the company also said it expects to pay at least $2.5 billion in claims through the end of 2010....

MBIA's Structured Finance and International Insurance segment, which holds the bond insurer's more toxic housing-related exposures, reported unrealized losses of $810.2 million on insured credit derivatives during the third quarter....The losses were partly driven by an improvement in the perceived creditworthiness of MBIA. As investors become more confident that MBIA can meet its financial obligations, the market value of those obligations increases, resulting in an unrealized loss. The opposite happens when the market becomes more concerned about MBIA's financial strength.
The unit also incurred $210.1 million in losses and related expenses during the third quarter.

Nach dem Blutbad in Fort Hood rücken die Börsen momentan in den USA unter dem Eindruck der Ereignisse so ein kleines Stück weit ins Hintertreffen, die Diskussion um das Geschehen ist in voller Breite entbrannt. Bezeichnenderweise wird die Aktion der australischen Administration nunmehr hoch auf das Schild gehoben:

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had this to say recently;

"Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..

www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigureDetail.asp?gooID=10661

Wie seht ihr das? Wie schaut eure Meinung zu dem Statement des australischen Premier-Ministers aus?

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/...de-8162-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
There is increasing concern that we may be experiencing another round of asset-price bubbles that could pose great danger to the economy. Does this danger provide a case for the US Federal Reserve to exit from its zero-interest-rate policy sooner rather than later, as many commentators have suggested? The answer is no.

Are potential asset-price bubbles always dangerous? Asset-price bubbles can be separated into two categories. The first and dangerous category is one I call “a credit boom bubble”, in which exuberant expectations about economic prospects or structural changes in financial markets lead to a credit boom. The resulting increased demand for some assets raises their price and, in turn, encourages further lending against these assets, increasing demand, and hence their prices, even more, creating a positive feedback loop. This feedback loop involves increasing leverage, further easing of credit standards, then even higher leverage, and the cycle continues.

Eventually, the bubble bursts and asset prices collapse, leading to a reversal of the feedback loop. Loans go sour, the deleveraging begins, demand for the assets declines further and prices drop even more. The resulting loan losses and declines in asset prices erode the balance sheets at financial institutions, further diminishing credit and investment across a broad range of assets. The resulting deleveraging depresses business and household spending, which weakens economic activity and increases macroeconomic risk in credit markets. Indeed, this is what the recent crisis has been all about.

The second category of bubble, what I call the “pure irrational exuberance bubble”, is far less dangerous because it does not involve the cycle of leveraging against higher asset values. Without a credit boom, the bursting of the bubble does not cause the financial system to seize up and so does much less damage. For example, the bubble in technology stocks in the late 1990s was not fuelled by a feedback loop between bank lending and rising equity values; indeed, the bursting of the tech-stock bubble was not accompanied by a marked deterioration in bank balance sheets. This is one of the key reasons that the bursting of the bubble was followed by a relatively mild recession. Similarly, the bubble that burst in the stock market in 1987 did not put the financial system under great stress and the economy fared well in its aftermath.

Because the second category of bubble does not present the same dangers to the economy as a credit boom bubble, the case for tightening monetary policy to restrain a pure irrational exuberance bubble is much weaker. Asset-price bubbles of this type are hard to identify: after the fact is easy, but beforehand is not. (If policymakers were that smart, why aren’t they rich?) Tightening monetary policy to restrain a bubble that does not materialise will lead to much weaker economic growth than is warranted. Monetary policymakers, just like doctors, need to take a Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”.

Nonetheless, if a bubble poses a sufficient danger to the economy as credit boom bubbles do, there might be a case for monetary policy to step in. However, there are also strong arguments against doing so, which is why there are active debates in academia and central banks about whether monetary policy should be used to restrain asset-price bubbles.

But if bubbles are a possibility now, does it look like they are of the dangerous, credit boom variety? At least in the US and Europe, the answer is clearly no. Our problem is not a credit boom, but that the deleveraging process has not fully ended. Credit markets are still tight and are presenting a serious drag on the economy.
Tightening monetary policy in the US or Europe to restrain a possible bubble makes no sense at the current juncture. The Fed decision to retain the language that the funds rate will be kept “exceptionally low” for an “extended period” makes sense given the tentativeness of the recovery, the enormous slack in the economy, current low inflation rates and stable inflation expectations. At this critical juncture, the Fed must not take its eye off the ball by focusing on possible asset-price bubbles that are not of the dangerous, credit boom variety.

und danach youtube mit How Dr.Strangelove learned to stop worrying and to love the bomb....

geltendes Recht und wer unter "Islamic Sharia law" leben möchte, muss sich eben einen Staat als Lebensort suchen, wo dieses "law" geltendes Recht ist.

Das ist dann wohl nicht Australien. ;-)

....No doubt there are some good intentions in the government behind a desire to manage the markets higher. After all, a rising stock market is a sign of wealth and prosperity to the superficial elite based on their own personal portfolios. Especially if they ignore all the jobless, homeless, and suffering people being victimized in their highly exclusive empire of the ego.

But who can stop a people determined to be rich without productive labor, with a self-obsession capable of subordinating even heaven to their personal greed and vanity? This will end in an ocean of tears....
jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/11/...-daily-chart.html

aber was haben wir hier zu Lande zu bieten? Aha, die die Freiheitlich-Demokratische Grundordnung. Können wir den Sharia-Gläubigen damit helfen?

Na ja, is' scho recht, dann zockt mal schön weiter !!!