Why would Barclays think that only 1.6 million "distressed" homes would be sold in 2010, when they openly admit that there's 4.6 million homes already in the foreclosure pipeline? What does Barclays know that the public is not supposed to know?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25402.htm
Clearly, the banks have worked out a deal with Geithner and Bernanke to sell distressed inventory in dribs and drabs rather than all at once. That keeps prices high and makes their losses more manageable. But isn't that collusion or, at the very least, price fixing? The government definitely HAS a role to play in helping people keep their homes or providing assistance when they lose them, but they have no right to scam the public by stealthily manipulating the market to save underwater financial institutions.
The problem is not housing. The problem is the banks.
The banks do not have sufficient capital to fund the mortgage market, nor do they provide the bulk of the financing for auto loans, student loans, small business loans or credit card debt which is gathered into pools and chopped up into tranches for securities that are sold to investors. (Securitization generates wholesale funding for the credit markets) Not only are the banks unable to fulfill their primary social purpose -- which is extending credit -- they're also increasingly dependent on revenue from high-risk speculation. A recent article in the Financial Times exposed the fraud behind the 12-month surge in equities pointing out that retail investors have largely stayed on the sidelines.
Falling home prices stir fears of new bottom. But how far below the 'old' bottom?
Tax credits and historically low mortgage rates have failed to lift home prices so far this year. Prices fell 0.5 percent in March from February, according to the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city index released Tuesday.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
