NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) Dallas Fort Worth is one of the markets that has lost only in the single digit %'s on home values (they weren't inflated like everywhere else seemed to be) and that's honestly one of the biggest reasons why I haven't opened up my job search anywhere else is there's very little chance of me selling and recouping my loan value. Everyone says just take the loss... I'd only lose probably $10K, but then I think to myself that this job market has to be one of the first ones to come back because it wasn't hit as hard. Then my friends call me and tell me that their companies are still laying off mass people. It's nuts. Sorry for the detour there. NSS: I was just outside pulling grass out of my flower bed. Exciting, huh? And I was thinking about your dual income home thing. I would argue that in a sense, the dual income issue is a part of the "bubble" we're going through now. It led to HUGE inflation. Because our fundamentals changed (household income) it allowed for the money to be put into houses because there were two incomes available to pay for these ginormouse valuations. That's all contracting back. I know it's not "inflation" in the truest sense, yet, it kind of is "inflation". I hope that makes sense. So now, we're going through "deflation" and unless employment comes back, we're not going to see what we saw in 2005ish ever again. That's true - and those are the folks in foreclosure now. But in the long run, this ends up creating a healthier housing market. And we've seen so many foreclosures, I think we've played out a substantial part of the burst. Not all, though - foreclosures are a laggard of unemployment, so we'll still see big numbers there for a while. But as unpmployment stays generally even (around that 10% mark), the foreclosures will start to drop off, which further decreases over-cheap supply. Its sort of Darwinian, but it ends up helping. Still though, I don't think the 40% increase in incomes (on average, my guess) that people get from going from 1 income to 2, all went to mortgages. A substantial part of that (and just look around at the s*** your friends have in their homes to see this) was stuff no one really needs. They are wants. Also, as lenders have tightened the rules for lending in terms of amount put down and income requirements, that will prevent people from making as many of the same mistakes going forward.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 02:30 PM) I'm not an expert on the topic but I think the threat of cyberterrorism is completely overrated. It's not really possible to attack the entire Internet at once, so what's a nightmare scenario? A virus that takes down your bank's/cellphone's website, so it goes down for a day or so while they recover everything? Somehow hacking and taking over a government website and stealing secrets? All of the really important stuff is pretty insulated from that kind of thing and in some cases it's basically impossible, for all intents and purposes. My thoughts as well. These scenarios people cook up in their heads where someone takes down the financial sector or some such nonsense are pure fantasy. Its just not possible - the systems are so disparate and so differently secured by each organization and agency that you simply could not do it. The more likely attack would be on a single, high value target.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:52 PM) It depends on the supply you look at and the marketplace. But in my area I'd consider supply extremely low. Buyers are more extensive than sellers but even than we are talking about low numbers, scaringly low, it just happens to be that supply is at all time lows and the volume of transactions is as well. I think having it THAT low is a very localized thing. Nationally, that isn't the case. Its a lot lower than it was, but most places aside from a few isolated counties are not that way yet.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) It will? () Yes and no, but I guess I'm looking at it from my personal situation. Starts have dropped dramatically, but I thought inventories were still obnoxiously high. I can say that the builders must be seeing some light because they are consolidating (Pulte buying Centex, etc.) and that would not have happened unless they thought they were seeing some "green sprouts". Plus, that does show some of the lending is easing from a big standpoint, but from a personal standpoint, I would say not. I was hoping someone would take my bait about the two income household - you sort of did. But I can play both sides here... The main counter to my argument about two-income households, is that the increase in overall family incomes has meant a serious increase in their monthly spending levels. This would seem to make any adjustment to lower incomes all the more difficult. Jumping back to my side though, I think what you have here is the better of two models. If the increased spending was being done on more expensive necessities (which it hasn't - inflation has been very low for some time now), then the simple odds of being struck by a job loss would outweigh the flexibility. But since core inflation has stayed generally low, the extra spending was actually a broadening of spending into many different non-necessary sectors. This sector schism will, IMO, start to become apparent in the performance and markets in the next year. Families will adjust down their spending on non-necessary items (i.e. consumer electronics), but still generally support the necessities (grocery, hardware). This type of model is more flexible and more able to take on the burden of loss of income, than the other one. So, investors, take note. Watch for commodity and necessity sectors to perform well from here out for a while, with elective spending areas lagging.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:20 PM) I am not hearing of lenders easing up - in fact, I'm hearing it's tougher and they don't really want to work with people. You either have that 750 score, or you don't. Not what I have seen. Heck, one of my people here was just telling me they were below 700, and will get dinged on the rate, but will still get a new loan. I think your statement was true back in the winter and spring. Less so now. NBC and others have done some stories lately about people having trouble re-financing to make things affordable, and having trouble - and that doesn't surprise me. But that is also a different equation than new lending (new buyers or buyer/sellers).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:18 PM) Supply is low? No way. Demand is trickling back up because of some of the incentives out there, but in no way is there a large demand - as you said, jobs, credit, etc. are still damn hard to come by. Inventories are pretty large at this point as well. I'l have to find the articles, but as I recall, the generalized overall market capacity in completed homes was like 15 months at one point. It has dropped to something like 7 to 9 months, and once its below 6 or 7, you start to see significant price increases. So its not yet in the territory where it is going to be a major kick up, but its made a lot of ground. Caveat: there will be major regional differences in these numbers of course. Also: credit is getting easier slowly, but you are right on about unemployment. And here is an odd little thing to consider... think about this for a moment. In previous recessions over the past 70 years, unemployment in a household was a 100% axe in almost all cases. Dad lost job, now no income. Today, as most homes have two working parents, its a much less massive event. Still awful of course, but, less so, less often, than it was. That will ultimately help cushion the fall from unemployment.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) Except I really don't believe that supply is nearly as low as it seems. There are a ton of people who want to see but can't, because of either job, credit, credit market, or upside down issues right now. The resistance for a recovery in the housing market is huge right now. I can think of no better example than the auto market fundamentals we just saw, except this is much bigger because of the huge price losses in many markets. What you are referring to, the people already in homes that they bought relatively recently and can't sell now (not enough equity, etc.), is a downslope, definitely. But there is a crossing curve you need to address (well, a few, actually). The big one is new capacity slowing down DRAMATICALLY. The new housing starts fell like a rock during the past six months, as developers focused on selling what they had and not building new. This had a deliterious effect on the economy, but it stopped the out of control home building machine that was still plowing along late last year. By taking new stuff out of the market, you focus buyers onto those existing homes, which will inevitably prop up their value. Further, you also have a lot of new buyer types out there who are seeing tax breaks and cheap prices, and jumping in. Now, some of that is a spike, this year. But some will continue, as lenders have been easing lending a bit lately, so more new buyers can leap into it. That is a self-sustaining growth right there, that will also help the market.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) I think you and Matt do an outstanding job going back and forth too. Its very educational and a great read. I bet a blog or even podcast would be very cool for you guys. Of course I have no clue what kind of market there is for stuff like that. But you guys teach me more than the people on CNBC and stuff do. I think they have some great stuff in the morning but the more perspective the better as I'm continually trying to learn more and more how markets work. That's an interesting thought (and thanks, BTW). Lots of people do this in the media, not sure if there are little fish in the pond too. My firm actually has a media arm that has commentary out there, so, I probably would not be allowed to go do something like that formally. And housing is sort of weak territory for me anyway, knowledge-wise. I'm far more knowledgeable in financials, derivatives particularly.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) In terms of the housing market, I think the biggest reason we are seeing numbers increase a bit is a, because it was down for such an extended period of time, but also B because the supply is actually very very low (shockingly low). Now I'm basing the above on my market and as we all know, real estate differs across the country pretty significantly, but no one got hit much harder than SoCal during the housing and mortgage bubble (we not only had inflated housing prices crash and a large % of the new wave of financing, but we were also home to the corporate headquarters of most of those lenders) and right now prices have went up a bit the past few months (during summer which is the typical peak season for real estate). The problem is, when you look out there you'll see that the only things on the market (and I'm talking about 80% and higher are short sales and REO's). There are about 20% equity sellers (and I actually think I'm exaggerating as there are far less than that). Short sales are pretty much non-existent as they are very very difficult to get closed so really the only available homes are REO's and the ocassional equity seller and because of this people sitting out there looking to buy a home (ie, the young and new families trying to take advantage of the first semi-affordable market in our young adult lives). So Bottom line, Mike is completely on par in saying that this housing rebound is anything other than a minor blip. Is stuff going to dive bomb, absolutely not, but there is enough out there that will prevent any true recovery for a lot longer (I do think it is pretty safe to buy, if not a great time to buy if you can, but that time window should be around for another couple years, at least in my area). The low supply you are referring to is a fundamental support in the market. The fact that is has gotten a lot lower is good, not bad. Its not an indication of anything temporary, its quite the opposite. If sales and prices suddenly jumped while supply was not going down significantly, then THAT would tell me this this will go back down again, and that it was purely tax-deal and foreclosure-inspired blips. But as supply keeps getting lower in going with the prices, and more people snatch up the foreclosure properties, the market is correcting in a fundamental way.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 12:04 PM) Hasn't the risk of that passed already? The dynamics necessary to create deflation from this point would be a HUGE economic collapse - basically like CKnolls is predicting and has predicted before.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) U.S. double-dip recession "out of the question": ECRI On Friday August 28, 2009, 10:30 am EDT NEW YORK (Reuters) - A weekly measure of future U.S. economic growth slipped in the latest week, though its yearly growth rate surged to a 38-year high that suggests chances of a double-dip recession are slim. The Economic Cycle Research Institute, a New York-based independent forecasting group, said its Weekly Leading Index for the week to August 21 fell to 124.4 from a downwardly revised 124.9 the prior week, which was originally reported at 125.0. But the index's annualized growth rate soared to a 38-year high of 19.6 percent from a downwardly revised 17.4 percent the prior week, a number which was originally 17.5 percent. It was the WLI's highest yearly growth rate reading since the week to May 28, 1971, when it stood at 20.5 percent. "With WLI growth continuing to surge through late summer, a double dip back into recession in the fourth quarter is simply out of the question," said ECRI Managing Director Lakshman Achuthan, reinstating the group's recent warning to ignore negative analyst projections. He added that the index was pulled down this week due to higher interest rates. Achuthan has recently projected that the recovery is moving at a stronger pace than any the United States has seen since the early 1980s. "out of the question" is something no one should ever say when projecting a market. Its asking for trouble, and makes me question this source. QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 11:02 AM) The mkt has a memory and OFTEN REPEATS. Overlay the recent daily charts with 29-30 37-38 etc. and it gives you an idea as to where we can go from here. Speculation is observation..It is not the news itself that moves mkts, its the reaction to the news. Sometimes you do not need a news event at all. The mkt will roll over on its own weight. Right now I would be looking to outright short the mkt near 1044.73 to be exact, in the SPX cash. Use 1120 as a stop. Mkts have a tendency to revert back to where they started, and if that is the case with this one we have a ways to go before we hit the bottom. Like a little more than 50% from here. Over500 SPX points. That is a little over 5000 dow points. Not saying it will happen now, but it could happen in the next 12-24 months. QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) Even scarier is DEFLATION. Your predictions tend to be dire on this board, usually well outside what most others predict, and this is no exception. Dow 5000? Deflation? I find these to be incredibly unliklely scenarios based on all the economic data out there, as well as market history.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 10:03 AM) My personal feeling is that the majority of people who feel that way only do because it is where the Sawx play. it's not as if it was built 5 years ago to help them out. They just haven't changed it. I personally love that all stadiums are different and I love the little oddities and quirks many stadiums have. Agreed. I like that there are parks like Fenway around. I went to a game there 2 years ago (this in response to the original topic). Make sure at some point during the game, you venture out onto the street that is now basically part of the park, behind the stands (I can't remember the name of the street). Just go mill around, its fun. The seats are cramped and the food is disappointing, but there really is a neat, small-park, historic feel to the place. More so than Wrigley, IMO. Fun place to catch a game. One thing I didn't get to do was get up into the area on top of the Monstah. I'd like to see a game from there sometime. And Boston is a great town - probably my fave in the US outside of Chicago. Lots of great stuff to do.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 10:21 AM) Right now, yeah. But assuming Dye gets his ass in gear, the above lineup is the one you go to war with. Also, Pods is probably a low percentage play against CC. You have 4 starting OF's basically, plus rotation of one into DH occasionally, so Pods does need to take a day off once or twice a week. Today is a good day for that.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 10:03 AM) what did you think of the Chief Economist's take on that in the article above? I think its interesting that they just make a small, one sentence mention of "no inflation worries for the next year". I'm not sure I agree, but more importantly, it ignores the factors that point to potential for serious inflation problems starting next year, then building.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) 1.Crains and WSJ do their best business when markets are good. Its the same reason CNBC is a market cheerleader. 2. That is the argument in a nutshell. Personally I am not sticking my finger into that bottom yet. I don't believe that the fundementals are ready yet. 3. This recession is a bit different because of the confidence factor. The worse things are, the more scared people get, and the longer it will take them to wade back into the spending pool. I don't believe that confidence will really return to the system until people are working and aren't in fear of losing their jobs. That hasn't happened yet. I can't believe you put CNBC and WSJ/Crain's business writing in the same sentence. As for a bottom, I'm not suggesting we all try to find an exact point. I'm saying that all indications at this point is that we are in the territory of a floor. Confidence is indeed huge. But I think its interesting that when Obama goes on the tube and says things are still tough but we're seeing signs of recover, het gets blasted for it. For one thing, he's right. For another, it is hugely important to the country that the President try to promote those positives, as long as he doesn't extend into true falsehoods. That confidence can come in part from these things being highlighted.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 09:45 AM) I don't buy the modern bias anymore. It wasn't too long ago that people believed that the market has gotten so effecient at pricing in information, that a negative PE could be interpreted as a good thing. 10 years later over 90% of the dotcoms are busts or buyouts. I still believe in history and understanding what the numbers are telling you, and why they are saying what they are. The housing market has all of the signs of a deadcat bounce. Unemployment is still rising, as is the hidden unemployment of people who either have been taken off of the official roles because they have exhausted their benefits, or have taken much less paying/part time work out of desparation. The other big factor in homebuying is ease of credit, and that hasn't really changed that much in the last 10 months or so either. Also remember that employment lags confidence in the system by 6-12 months, and foreclosures also lag unemployment by about the same margin. There is still a large chunk of supply that hasn't come onto the housing market, not to mention, much like the hidden auto demand, there is also the hidden housing supply of people who want to sell their houses, but feel that they can't for one reason or another (worried about losing job, upside down on loan, houses not selling in area so not trying, etc). Even if hiring really did take off today, it would be a year to two years before you could really point to a true housing recovery. More numbers I have seen bantered around as proof are the durable goods and GDP revisions... This is pretty simple stuff to explain away as well. The two biggest components in durable goods are airplanes and autos. Autos numbers being reported are in the midst of the cash for clunkers bounce. Once you remove auto numbers from durable goods, that number becomes near zero growth. That same growth is also responsible for a good chunk of GDP growth. Remember, no one seemed to be able to forecast how successful this program would be, which means it wasn't factored in as "expected" in any of the growth figures for Q3. Now moving on to Q4 you have removed pretty much all automotive demand from this system, both pent up demand and the future demand from people who realized that this was the best deal they were going to ever see, so they moved and took delivery sooner than they probably would have. As for other durables, people who are employed and able to buy are also still scared of losing their jobs, as unemployment is still increasing. If you are scared of losing your job, you aren't going to run out and spend savings money to buy a new fridge or TV unless you have to do so. The proof here is that savings rates in the US are still at levels we haven't seen in decades, and again, even the slight dip in the number can be explained by the artificial demand of cash for clunkers spending. I also saw your point about articles of people investing in the stock market, but I am still reading articles about people who are afraid to invest in the same market, in other, less market biased media outlets. The Sunday Tribune just had one. Finally I really believe that we have to see unemployment take a real turn before I will believe actual growth is coming. The fundementals of the markets have to change, and not just by artificial government means. For all of those auto sales, does anyone think any jobs are going to be saved? That is the question we should be asking. Until jobs come back for real (not just accounting tricks brought on by people who can't file for benefits anymore, or are working part time/at a fraction of former salaries.) we aren't going to sustain anything. History bears this out, not just me. 1. "other less biased media outlets"? Than WSJ and Crain's? WTF? 2. The housing market has all the signs of a dead cat, because it has all the signs of hitting a floor. That's why everything we're seeing now is positive. There will probably be one more dip, or a leveling, into early next year, as the tax incentives wear off, but that's expected and not a bad thing at all. The only two things that are really worriesome for the next year or two in housing are increased unemployment (which we'll probably see at least a little bit of), and the looming inflation issue's effects on mortgage rates. And those are definitely big. But I think the overall strength is building - and we'd likely see a slow, choppy rise over the next few years. Downticks as rates go up and employment goes down, upticks when employment goes up again. 3. As for history bearing you out about unemployment, that is only partially true. Its always the laggard. Economic growth needs people to have jobs, but typically the growth starts around when unemployment tops, not after. Then they move in concert. That's why the market has priced in some spiky growth next 2 quarters, but sustained, more predictable growth next year. Inflation is the scary monster next year, IMO. That is the biggest X factor in how quickly we recover, or if we dip deeply again, in 2010.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) I think Dye needs to continue riding pine. Dye's career 1.120 OPS vs CC says otherwise. The Sox need Dye to hit to be successful, and this is one of his best matchups to get it back together, so it makes no sense to bench him here. Also, he had the day off yesterday. He definitely needs to hit here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:25 PM) History makes me a pessimist. If you can pick out some historical president for sustained stock market rallies in these sorts of economic conditions, I'd love to hear them. One thing to bear in mind when comparing now to before, is that in more modern times, at increasing levels over time, the markets price-in future events faster and more fully. The market has jumped further ahead of the economic event curve. This run-up is in anticipation of their most favored likely scenario - that we are leveling, and probably looking at a slow growth beginning this winter and into next year, with employment leveling and getting better sometime first half of next year. Keep in mind also, that the drop in late 2008 was massive, even in some ways dwarfing the biggest long-term drops ever. People took their money out. Now, per an article I just read (WSJ or Crains, I can't remember which), people are getting back into contributing heavier in 401k's and IRA's again. That institutional bump is also probably a factor here.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) I think this is the article I read when it happened a few weeks ago. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/hou...care/index.html It actually looks kind of half-assed imo. Just looking at the highlights, they pretty much all make sense. But I tend to agree its a partial solution, and will have a few negative side effects as well. I wouldn't be opposed to it as a starting place, though.

Dye's track record indicates a very good chance that when he gets out of his slump (assuming its not due to an injury), he'll hit big - so you have to keep playing him. Its actually the smart move. But you sure don't have to play him every day. I'd be for playing Kotsay and Rios in CF a bit more, giving Dye maybe every third day off, for now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:42 PM) They can limit your access to a non-Constitutional-right event, such as a town hall. They can't institute what amounts to a poll tax (according to some) to exercise your right to vote. Isn't that the objection to registering your guns? That you shouldn't need a license to exercise your right? The comparison just doesn't work. Actually, the main objection to registering guns is that it counters the very purpose of 2A, by allowing the government to know who has what guns. But as for the poll tax argument, that's only valid if people cannot obtain a proper ID for free. as long as they can, its not a tax.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) The House GOP did put out a bill. I didn't get to read the whole thing but I saw a lot of tax cuts/credits etc. Well I stand corrected. If you have a link, I'd like to see it. If not that's fine, I can go find it I'd think.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) its always easier to say no, then develop something of your own. Except they haven't even bothered with the latter. They don't want a latter, they want same, except with fewer lawsuits.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) Yes, they do, it's just you're never, ever going to hear about it. So the Republicans are all mutes?

QUOTE (soxfan22 @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 09:56 PM) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6LNnKonTOw First one screams fake. Colors around the bat in the dirt change. I've seen the second one before though, love it.