Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Paradise Valley Sales Analysis for Shirley

There have been Four closed sales in Paradise Valley, Arizona in 2011; Where the home was listed for Over 5 Million.
 5802 E. Cholla Lane
Started at $8,900,000......Sold for $4,225,000
Roughly 9,450 square feet
523 Days on Market (11-09-2009)
 

 5937 N. La Colina
Started at $5,000,000
Closed 11-11-2011
$4,345,000 AT ABSOLUTE AUCTION
Approx. 9523 square feet
49 days on market

 8644 N. Morning Glory
Started at $6,900,000 (10-12-2009)
Closed 1-14-2011 $4,500,000
310 Days on market

 7001 N. Longlook
Started at $7,950,000
Closed 5-25-2011 $5,500,000
436 Days on market


UNDER CONTRACT:
 5600 N. Saguaro
Started at $23,000,000
Currently Listed for $14,000,000
1382 Days on Market
Approx. 14,304 square feet
Foreclosure auction scheduled 06-01-2012
oustanding Balance indicated $8,455,535



Foreign Buyers


Foreign buyers scooping up U.S. homes

 October 21, 2011: 5:23 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hey, wealthy foreigners! Want to live in the U.S.? Buy a home here.
International purchases of American homes are ramping up, and a new Senate bill designed to boost the ailing real-estate market would encourage globe-trotting investors to buy even more.
The bill, co-sponsored by Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R.-Utah) would grant a U.S. visa to international investors who agree to spend at least $500,000 on residential real estate here.
If passed, the legislation could add to a surge in homebuying by international purchasers over the past year or two that's already given some local U.S. markets a welcome boost.
Growing international interest
Foreigners spent $82 billion buying up U.S. homes in the 12 months ended in March, up 24% from a year earlier, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). That represents 8% of total U.S. sales.
In places like South Florida, international buyers already account for a whopping 25% of the market. California, Texas and Arizona also attract many foreign buyers, as do Hawaii and New York.
South Florida condo sales have been surprisingly strong, said Brad Hunter, chief economist for Metrostudy, a housing analytics company. "And the majority of those sales are to South Americans and Canadians," he said.

Your local forecast

All that international buyer activity has been a tonic for the anemic Florida market. Housing starts were up nearly 20% in the three months ended Sept. 30, according to Metrostudy.
In Manhattan, there's been a steady baseline of foreign condo buyers, said Jonathan Miller, CEO of Miller Samuel, a New York appraisal firm. They generally account for about 15% of investors, but in recent years, the buyer mix in New York City has shifted, he said.
When the euro was strong in the mid-2000s, buyers from Western Europe -- and particularly Ireland -- dominated.
The Irish "economy was so strong back home -- the 'Celtic Tiger' years -- that many were flush and wanted to invest and take advantage of the spread between currencies," said Miller. "There were marketing groups that would go to Ireland and sell packages of condos here."
Now, said Miller, the New York market now attracts more Asian and Latin American buyers than in the past.
Wei Min Tan, a real-estate agent with Charles Rutenburg Realty who specializes in selling Manhattan real estate to Asians, said his volume has more than doubled this year.
"I tell [buyers] it's going to be a stable investment that should go up 10% a year," he said. That's "not as much as they might get in Hong Kong or Shanghai," but there's less volatility, he said.
Even better for homeowners, foreign sales can be very easy: The buyers are often affluent and buy more expensive homes. The median sale price of $175,000 they pay in Florida, for example, is well above the median sales price of $136,500 for all transactions.
There's also no hassle over financing or waiting around for a mortgage lender to approve the deal: Overwhelmingly, international buyers pay cash.
Indeed, the Senate bill would require buyers to pay cash for the homes to qualify for the new "homeowner" visa. They'd also need to pay U.S. taxes and spend at 180 days a year in the country, and can't work here or take out home-equity loans against the properties. In return, they'd get to live here for at least three years.
A vote of confidence
The program could improve the housing market nationwide, said Schumer.
"We think a very significant number of people will be brought in," he said. "They'll sop up the extra supply of homes we have right now that has been dragging down the economy."
Foreigners seem to have more confidence in the U.S. real estate market than Americans do. Almost half of buyers surveyed by NAR cited the profitability or safety of their investments as the main factor that persuaded them to buy.
"With the economic distress in Europe," said Miller, "people are still looking for safe havens for investing and the U.S. is perceived globally as safe."

Monday, August 1, 2011

From End of the American Dream

Our Politicians Are Selling Off Pieces Of America To Foreign Investors – And Goldman Sachs Is Helping Them Do It

All over the United States, politicians are selling off key pieces of infrastructure to foreign investors and big Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs are helping them do it.  State and local governments across the country that are drowning in debt and that are desperate for cash are increasingly turning to the "privatization" of public assets as the solution to their problems.  Pieces of infrastructure that taxpayers have already paid for such as highways, water treatment plants, libraries, parking meters, airports and power plants are being auctioned off to the highest bidder.  Most of the time what happens is that the state or local government receives a huge lump sum of cash up front for a long-term lease (usually 75 years or longer) and the foreign investors come in and soak as much revenue out of the piece of infrastructure that they possibly can.  The losers in these deals are almost always the taxpayers.  Pieces of America are literally being auctioned off just to help state and local governments minimize their debt problems for a year or two, but the consequences of these deals will be felt for decades.
Sadly, this trend continues to accelerate.  Just this week, a bill that will allow the state government of Ohio to proceed with plans to lease the Ohio Turnpike to investors was approved.  The state government of Ohio will soon receive a one-time injection of cash and everyone in the area that uses the Ohio Turnpike will end up paying much higher tolls for decades to come.
Highways have also been auctioned off (most of the time to foreign investors) in Indiana, the city of Chicago, Florida, Virginia and Texas.
Amazingly, many politicians continue to insist that selling off pieces of infrastructure that have already been fully paid for by taxpayers is a wonderful thing.  In fact, there are actually some politicians that have the gall to call it a "conservative" thing to do.
For example, Rick Perry has been at the forefront of the effort to "privatize" the highways of Texas.
You would think that the people of Texas would have gotten rid of him by now, but considering the fact that he may be running for the Republican nomination in 2012, he just might be our next president.
What makes the selling off of our infrastructure even worse is that big Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs are helping our corrupt politicians do it.
In fact, Wall Street sees a tremendous opportunity in the "distressed assets" of our broke state and local governments.
The fact that Goldman Sachs is making millions auctioning off our public infrastructure should make the blood of all red-blooded Americans boil.  The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article posted on dylanratigan.com....
On Wall Street, setting up and running “Infrastructure Funds” is big business, with over $140 billion run by such banks as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Australian infrastructure specialist Macquarie. Goldman’s 2010 SEC filing should give you some sense of the scope of the campaign. Goldman says it will be involved with “ownership and operation of public services, such as airports, toll roads and shipping ports, as well as power generation facilities, physical commodities and other commodities infrastructure components, both within and outside the United States.” While the bank sees increased opportunity in “distressed assets” (ie. Cities and states gone broke because of the financial crisis), the bank also recognizes “reputational concerns with the manner in which these assets are being operated or held.”
Why does Goldman Sachs always seem to be at the heart of so many things that are wrong with our financial system?
Unfortunately, Goldman Sachs is not the only one seeking to make a quick buck these days.
Foreign investors in particular seem to have an affinity for pieces of U.S. infrastructure, and Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs love to help them gobble it up.
The sovereign wealth funds of nations such as Saudi Arabia, China, Kuwait, Libya, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates are eagerly investing in highways, ports, toll roads and even parking meters all across America.
So precisely what is a sovereign wealth fund?
In a previous article I defined it as "a huge mountain of state-owned money that roams about the countryside looking for assets to gobble up."
The combination of sovereign wealth funds with huge piles of money to burn and state and local governments that are desperate to raise cash has created something of a "perfect storm".
In an article for Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi documented some of the key pieces of infrastructure that these sovereign wealth funds have been gobbling up....
A toll highway in Indiana. The Chicago Skyway. A stretch of highway in Florida. Parking meters in Nashville, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and other cities. A port in Virginia. And a whole bevy of Californian public infrastructure projects, all either already leased or set to be leased for fifty or seventy-five years or more in exchange for one-off lump sum payments of a few billion bucks at best, usually just to help patch a hole or two in a single budget year.
As Taibbi noted, the money that is raised from these long-term leases usually only helps fix budget problems for a year or two, but the pieces of infrastructure that are being auctioned off will be in the hands of foreigners for decades to come.
Sadly, much of our own infrastructure is not even built in this country anymore.
For example, a 2,050 foot bridge that is going to connect San Francisco and Oakland is actually being built in China and is being shipped over to the U.S. piece by piece.
This bridge is being constructed by the China State Construction Engineering Group, and according to an article in The Telegraph, they have been building a whole lot of major projects all over the United States....
CSCEC has already built seven schools in the US, apartment blocks in Washington DC and New York and is in the middle of building a 4,000-room casino in Atlantic City. In New York, it has won contracts to renovate the subway system, build a new metro platform near Yankee stadium, and refurbish the Alexander Hamilton Bridge over the Harlem river.
Massive corporations that are either fully or partially owned by the Chinese government are deeply integrating themselves into the U.S. economy.
For much more on this phenomenon, please see a previous article I authored entitled "The Chinese Government Is Buying Up Economic Assets And Huge Tracts Of Land All Over The United States".
Sadly, as our state and local governments get even deeper into debt, the amount of infrastructure that is being auctioned off to foreigners will continue to grow.
Most Americans don't realize how desperate many state and local governments have become.  For example, things have gotten so tight that New York City is now actually rationing toilet paper at Coney Island.
The United States is drowning in debt from coast to coast and pieces of the country are literally being auctioned off.  The looting and the "privatization" are only going to intensify as our state and local government debt problems get even worse.
Perhaps on all future maps of the world we should just put a big "for sale" sign on the United States.
What in the world has happened to this country?

Monday, July 25, 2011

Fed Gave Banks Crisis Gains on $80 Billion Secretive Loans as Low as 0.01%


Credit Suisse Group AG (CS)Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) andRoyal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (RBS) each borrowed at least $30 billion in 2008 from a Federal Reserve emergency lending program whose details weren’t revealed to shareholders, members of Congress or the public.
The $80 billion initiative, called single-tranche open- market operations, or ST OMO, made 28-day loans from March through December 2008, a period in which confidence in global credit markets collapsed after the Sept. 15 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Units of 20 banks were required to bid at auctions for the cash. They paid interest rates as low as 0.01 percent that December, when the Fed’s main lending facility charged 0.5 percent.
“This was a pure subsidy,” said Robert A. Eisenbeis, former head of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and now chief monetary economist at Sarasota, Florida-based Cumberland Advisors Inc. “The Fed hasn’t been forthcoming with disclosures overall. Why should this be any different?”
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which oversaw ST OMO, posted aggregate data about the program on its website after each auction, said Jeffrey V. Smith, a New York Fed spokesman. By increasing the availability of short-term financing when private lenders were under pressure, “this program helped alleviate strains in financial markets and support the flow of credit to U.S. households and businesses,” he said.

Not in Dodd-Frank

Congress overlooked ST OMO when lawmakers required the central bank to publish its emergency lending data last year under the Dodd-Frank law.
“I wasn’t aware of this program until now,” said U.S. Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chaired the House Financial Services Committee in 2008 and co- authored the legislation overhauling financial regulation. The law does require the Fed to release details of any open-market operations undertaken after July 2010, after a two-year lag.
Records of the 2008 lending, released in March under court orders, show how the central bank adapted an existing tool for adjusting the U.S. money supply into an emergency source of cash. Zurich-based Credit Suisse borrowed as much as $45 billion, according to bar graphs that appear on 27 of 29,000 pages the central bank provided to media organizations that sued the Fed Board of Governors for public disclosure.
New York-based Goldman Sachs’s borrowing peaked at about $30 billion, the records show, as did the program’s loans to RBS, based in Edinburgh. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK)Barclays Plc (BARC) and UBS AG (UBSN) each borrowed at least $15 billion, according to the graphs, which reflect deals made by 12 of the 20 eligible banks during the last four months of 2008.

No Exact Amounts

The records don’t provide exact loan amounts for each bank. Smith, the New York Fed spokesman, would not disclose those details. Amounts cited in this article are estimates based on the graphs.
One effect of the program was to spur trading in mortgage- backed securities, said Lou Crandall, chief U.S. economist at Jersey City, New Jersey-based Wrightson ICAP LLC, a research company specializing in Fed operations. The 20 banks -- previously designated as primary dealers to trade government securities directly with the New York Fed -- posted mortgage securities guaranteed by government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in exchange for the Fed’s cash.
ST OMO aimed to thaw a frozen short-term funding market and not necessarily to aid individual banks, Crandall said. Still, primary dealers earned spreads by using the program to help customers, such as hedge funds, finance their mortgage securities, he said.

‘Spreads Vary’

“Spreads vary from one transaction to another,” making any calculation of dealers’ profits on the Fed loans impossible, Crandall said.
The Fed opposed disclosing details of its open market operations because doing so would probably cause borrowers “substantial competitive harm,” according to a March 2009 declaration by Christopher R. Burke, vice president of the New York Fed’s markets group. The declaration is filed in federal court.
Revealing the borrowing “could lead market participants to inaccurately speculate that the primary dealer was having difficulty finding term funding against its collateral in the open market and that the dealer itself must therefore be in financial trouble,” Burke said in opposing a media request for records about the borrowing.
The New York Fed conducted 44 ST OMO auctions, from March through December 2008, according to its website. Banks bid the interest rate they were willing to pay for the loans, which had terms of 28 days. That was an expansion of longstanding open- market operations, which offered cash for up to two weeks.
Outstanding ST OMO loans from April 2008 to January 2009 stayed at $80 billion. The average loan amount during that time was $19.4 billion, more than three times the average for the 7 1/2 years prior, according to New York Fed data. By comparison, borrowing from the Fed’s discount window, its main lending program for banks since 1914, peaked at $113.7 billion in October 2008, Fed data show.
In March 2008, ST OMO was “desperately needed,” because of the shaken state of short-term credit markets, said Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law in Baltimore and former director of the division of markets and trading at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. After the Fed created other lending mechanisms and the Treasury Department began distributing money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program in October, ST OMO became “just a way for banks to have at it,” he said.

‘Profit-Making Enterprise’

“At such low interest rates, it’s no longer a rescue, it’s a profit-making enterprise,” Greenberger said. “By December, a lot of money was made off this program.”
Goldman Sachs, led by Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein, tapped the program most in December 2008, when data on the New York Fed website show the loans were least expensive. The lowest winning bid at an ST OMO auction declined to 0.01 percent on Dec. 30, 2008, New York Fed data show. At the time, the rate charged at the discount window was 0.5 percent.
Stephen Cohen, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment.

December Peak

As its ST OMO loans peaked in December 2008, Goldman Sachs’s borrowing from other Fed facilities topped out at $43.5 billion, the 15th highest peak of all banks assisted by the Fed, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That month, the bank’s Fixed Income, Currencies and Commodities trading unit lost $320 million, according to a May 6, 2009, regulatory filing.
Under ST OMO, cash changed hands through repos, or repurchase agreements, which the central bank has used to move money in and out of the banking system for at least 60 years. In a repo, the dealer sells securities to the Fed and agrees to buy them back for a higher price after a set period of time.
Open-market operations traditionally use repos to influence the federal funds rate, which is banks’ cost of short-term borrowing, said Sherrill Shaffer, the officer in charge of the discount window at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia from 1994 to 1997. He’s now a banking professor at the University of Wyoming in Laramie.
When the central bank increases the money supply -- by paying cash for securities in repos -- interest rates tend to fall. When it drains cash from the system by selling securities in reverse repos, rates can climb.

Pedal to Metal

Using repos to provide emergency cash, a step the Fed announced on March 7, 2008, was a departure from that process, said John H. Cochrane, a finance professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
“The Fed was slamming the pedal to the metal in the lender-of-last-resort category,” Cochrane said. “What they did was so far from what we conventionally think of as monetary policy.”
Credit Suisse’s borrowing peaked at about $45 billion in September 2008, the Fed charts show. Steven Vames, a Credit Suisse spokesman in New York, declined to comment.
RBS’s use of ST OMO hit about $30 billion in October 2008. The U.K. government has had a stake in the bank since Oct. 13, 2008. “RBS no longer makes any use of these emergency Federal Reserve lending programs and all money borrowed from the Fed has been repaid in full with interest,” said Michael Geller, a spokesman for RBS Global Banking & Markets in Stamford, Connecticut.

Annual Report

Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank’s use peaked at about $20 billion in October 2008, its chart shows. The bank had 87 billion euros ($122 billion) in repurchase agreements with all central banks as of the end of 2008, according to its annual report. John Gallagher, a bank spokesman, declined to comment.
London-based Barclays’s peak reached about $20 billion in December 2008, the chart said. Mark Lane, a Barclays spokesman, declined to comment.
UBS, based in Zurich, borrowed as much as about $15 billion in late 2008, the chart shows.
“UBS’s usage of those facilities should be seen in the context of our overall desire to maintain flexibility and diversification in our funding sources, even during the crisis,” said Kelly Smith, a spokeswoman for UBS in New York. “Given UBS’s substantial presence and commitment to U.S. dollar-denominated markets, utilization of such facilities was relatively modest.”

Other Banks

Other banks listed in the Fed charts borrowed less than their peers. New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS) and Paris-based BNP Paribas (BNP)France’s biggest bank by assets, took no more than about $10 billion. Citigroup Inc. (C), JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co., which is now part of Bank of America Corp. (BAC), borrowed less than $5 billion each.
Mary Claire Delaney, a spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley, Jon Diat, a Citigroup spokesman in New York, Howard Opinsky, a spokesman for New York-based JPMorgan Chase, and Megan Stinson, a spokeswoman in New York for BNP Paribas, declined to comment on their banks’ borrowings.
“Look at it in hindsight and these programs did exactly what they were intended to do -- stabilize the financial system, provide liquidity and instill confidence,” said Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America.
The bar charts were included in the Fed’s court-ordered March 31 disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The release was mandated after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an industry group’s attempt to block it. Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, and News Corp. (NWS)’s Fox News Network LLC had sued the central bank after it refused to release lending records under the FOIA.
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Gary Putka at gputka@bloomberg.net.