Tuesday, September 13, 2005

The myth of a global savings glut

C. P. Chandrasekhar
Jayati Ghosh

There is substantial agreement that international imbalances in growth and balance of payments performance are a source of global fragility. But disagreements persist on the source of those imbalances. C. P. Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh discuss an effort to manufacture a global savings glut to cover up US responsibility.

THE revival of growth in the US when the rest of the developed world performs indifferently or poorly is a source of some surprise.

From around the mid-1970s the US has lost its competitiveness in commodity production, which has resulted in an increasing deficit in its balance of trade in goods.

Hence, despite a growing surplus till quite recently in its trade in services, the overall balance of trade in goods and services has been negative and sharply rising (Chart 1).

Growth triggers

Yet this weakness has now become the basis for the revival in growth. A concomitant of the loss of competitiveness has been the fact that the current account deficit of the US, which has to be financed with capital flows, has been widening in recent years, to touch a record $668 billion in 2004. This year, the US current-account deficit is forecast to widen even further to over $800 billion.

This massive increase in the current account deficit implies that despite its loss of competitiveness the US has been able to keep domestic demand rising. GDP growth which was down from 3.7 per cent in 2000 to 0.8 in 2001, rose to 1.9 per cent in 2002, 3 per cent in 2003 and 4.4 per cent in 2004. In June 2005, unemployment fell to 5 per cent, the lowest rate since September 2001.

It is now widely accepted that this buoyancy in domestic demand and the consequent growth in output and employment has been the result of a combination of deficit financed spending by the US Government and debt financed spending by American residents.

From a high of 6 per cent of GDP in 1992, the US fiscal deficit had declined continuously and turned into a budget surplus in 1998. The budget surplus rose to touch 1.3 per cent of GDP in 2000.

However, after the recession of 2001, the deficit climbed again to 4.6 per cent of GDP in 2003 and 4.3 per cent in 2004, which helped the recovery and the recent buoyancy.

But it was not merely government spending that was responsible for the revival, which was triggered by consumption spending by households as well. According to The Economist, on an annualised basis in June 2005, US households disposed of all but $1.9 billion (0.02 per cent) of the over $9 trillion in disposable income they earned. This obviously keeps retail sales going. Households save less and consume more, because the value of their wealth accumulated in the past has been rising. In particular, during the year ending March 2005 the value of their houses rose by $2.3 trillion, according to the Fed.

The housing boom is reflected in two tendencies. First, new residential investment at more than 6 per cent of GDP is at a 50-year high. And existing house sales, which peaked at just under 10 per cent of GDP in 1979, surpassed that level in 2002, and is now at over 13 per cent.

The former triggers demand for construction material and labour and has its multiplier effects. The latter pushes up prices and, through the wealth effect, triggers consumption spending, Home prices rose by almost 15 per cent in the year to June 2005, the fastest in decades.

Wealth effect

The wealth effect is not new to the US. During the years of the stock market boom of the second half of the 1990s, the relatively wider dispersion of direct and indirect stock ownership in the US implied a substantial increase in the wealth of American citizens. The consequent "wealth-effect", which encouraged individuals to spend because they saw their "accumulated" wealth as being adequate to finance their retirement plans, was seen as a major factor underlying the consumer boom and the fall in household savings.

A major factor responsible for the stock boom was the massive inflow of capital into the US during that period. Higher US interest rates, confidence in the dollar because of creditable growth and the "flight to safety" explained that flow of capital into the US. The same is not true today.

The deficit on the balance of payments has created a fear that the dollar may collapse and all efforts of the G-8 are geared to ensuring a "soft landing". Though the trade-weighted index of the dollar stabilised during early 2005 and even appreciated somewhat thereafter, it has once again been sliding and is currently still close to the low it reached at the end of 2004.

Further, US interest rates can hardly be considered high. Bond yields in the US are not only low by the standards prevailing since the early 1980s, but are far less than the rate of economic growth that they are expected to roughly reflect. Put all this together, and the US would not be considered a favoured and safe haven.

From borrowers to lenders

Yet capital has indeed been flowing into the US to finance the current account deficit. This must come from countries that were registering a surplus on their current account.

Consider for example 2003. In that year, 52 of the 126 countries for which data was available recorded surpluses on their current account, while 74 recorded deficits, with the US recording the largest deficit of $531 billion and Japan the largest surplus of $136 billion.

From the data it emerges that the surpluses of the top 17 surplus earning countries would have been necessary to cover the US deficit. The surpluses of these 17 countries accounted for as much as 86 per cent of the surpluses earned by the countries that recorded a surplus.

On the other hand, the US alone accounted for 72 per cent of the total deficit recorded by the 74 deficit countries.

Thus there is indeed a fundamental imbalance in the global balance of payments. But this imbalance does not just lie in the concentration of deficits and surpluses. It is also reflected in the fact that the US deficit was not being financed largely by the surpluses of other developed countries or, prior to the current spike in oil prices, by surpluses in the oil exporting countries.

While Japan and Germany are the two largest surplus earners, the surpluses of these two countries accounted only for 30 per of the aggregate surplus of all surplus earners and 35 per cent of the US deficit.

Even among these two, Japan accounts for $136 billion of their combined $188 billion surplus. Further, Germany's surplus of over $51 billion is implicitly being absorbed by deficits in other countries of the Euro area, with the surplus of the Euro area as a whole estimated at only $23.5 billion.

The net result of all this is that developing countries and countries in transition have become important sources of surpluses to finance the US deficit. If we take the top ten developing and transition economies in terms of the size of their surpluses, their aggregate surplus accounts for 39 per cent of the US deficit. If we leave out oil exporters and take the top 10 among the remaining developing countries, their surpluses account for 28 per cent of the US deficit. China's surplus alone accounts for 8.6 per cent of the US deficit, whereas net surpluses from the Euro area amount to only 4.4 per cent of that deficit. Developing countries have been even more important at the margin. As Federal Reserve Governor, Mr Ben Bernanke, has pointed out, the $548 billion increase in the US current account deficit between 1996 and 2004 was not matched by surpluses in the other industrial countries as a whole. The collective current account of the industrial countries declined by $441 billion between 1996 and 2004, implying that, of the $548 billion increase in the US current account deficit, only about $106 billion was offset by increased surpluses in other industrial countries.

The bulk of the increase in the US current account deficit was balanced by changes in the current account positions of developing countries, which moved from a collective deficit of $90 billion to a surplus of $326 billion — a net change of $416 billion — between 1996 and 2004.

It is because the surpluses of the rest of the world, especially the developing countries, was being "voluntarily" recycled to the US that interest rates there did not have to rise to attract capital to finance that country's rising current account deficit. Low interest rates in turn have helped finance the housing boom which, according to Mr Alan Greenspan, is not a speculative bubble but just "froth". Whether bubble or froth, most economists agree that the easy money that has financed it has been crucial to the economic recovery since 2001.

According to one estimate, housing has contributed over 40 per cent of employment growth since then. And housing expansion plus real estate inflation have accounted for 70 per cent of the increase in household wealth over this period. And this, as noted earlier, has triggered an expansion in consumer spending. Thus, capital inflows have once again helped finance growth in the US, even if mediated this time by the real estate rather than the stock market. The US, because of its political and military clout, has protected the dollar and sucked in capital from the rest of the work to crank its weakening economic machine.

Increased savings

Recently, however, Federal Reserve Governor took issue "with the common view that the recent deterioration in the US current account primarily reflects economic policies and other economic developments within the United States itself." In his view, a satisfactory explanation of the rapid rise of the US current account deficit requires a global perspective that takes account of the fact that "over the past decade a combination of diverse forces has created a significant increase in the global supply of saving — a global saving glut — which helps to explain both the increase in the US current account deficit and the relatively low level of long-term real interest rates in the world today." What accounts for this so-called global savings glut? According to Mr Bernanke, important among the reasons "is the recent metamorphosis of the developing world from a net user to a net supplier of funds to international capital markets." The shift, in his view, occurred because of developments in the developing countries themselves, especially the financial crises many of them faced since the mid-1990s. These crises are seen to have occurred because net capital imports into the developing countries in the early and mid-1990s were not always productively used but absorbed for the wrong reasons. In some developing countries, governments borrowed to finance budgetary deficits and avoid necessary fiscal consolidation. In other countries, these funds were not allocated to projects promising the highest returns because of "opaque and poorly governed banking systems".

The resulting loss of lender confidence, together with other factors such as overvalued fixed exchange rates and reliance on short-term debt denominated in foreign currencies resulted in financial crises that led to capital outflows, currency depreciation, sharp declines in domestic asset prices, weakened banking systems, and recession. Such was the experience, according to Mr Bernanke, in Mexico in 1994, in a number of East Asian countries in 1997-98, in Russia in 1998, in Brazil in 1999, and in Argentina in 2002

Thus the transformation of developing countries from net importers to net exporters of capital is seen as a voluntary or enforced response to these crises, created by wrong policies or institutional inadequacies in the developing countries. In the wake of the crises, these countries either chose or were forced into strategies that implied a current account surplus.

In practice there are two reasons why this could have occurred: crisis-induced deflation that restricted imports and generated current account surpluses or unusual success as an exporter of goods and/or attractor of foreign capital. While China and India may be countries that fall in the latter category, most other developing countries recorded surpluses because of deflation.

In fact, trends in the fiscal deficit in developing countries do suggest that an important reason why developing countries record a surplus on their current account is the deflationary fiscal stance adopted by their governments. Growth is curtailed through deflation so that, even with a higher import-to-GDP ratio resulting from trade liberalisation, imports are kept at levels that imply a trade surplus.

But going against the evidence, Mr Bernanke opts for the latter explanation, and argues that the outcome reflects conscious efforts to engineer a current account surplus in pursuit of a policy of reserve accumulation to deal with likely future capital outflows. This was ostensibly true of East Asian countries, such as Korea and Thailand, which began to build up large quantities of foreign-exchange reserves and continued to do so even after the capital inflows that had dried up after the crises were restored.

Even countries that had escaped the worst effects of the crisis such as China and India are seen to have built up reserves to serve as "war chests". It is for these reasons that developing countries have been transformed from borrowers on international capital markets to large net lenders.

However, the reasons for the reversal have been misread, leading to the "made in USA" perspective.

Flawed reasoning

This perspective is misplaced, because it is partly based on the "popular argument" that focuses on the burgeoning US federal budget deficit when explaining the decline in national saving and the rise in the current account deficit in the US. But that argument, in his view, cannot be sustained for two reasons: first, the US was recording a rise in current account deficit even during 1996 to 2000 when it was recording budgetary surpluses; second, there is no necessary relationship between a budget deficit and a current account deficit — countries such as Germany and Japan continue to run large current account surpluses despite government budget deficits that are similar in size (as a share of GDP) to that of the US.

What that ignores is that, the reason why a budgetary deficit leads to current account deficit is that the excess of government investment over government savings it implies is not matched by an excess of private saving over private investment or is accompanied by an excess of private investment over private saving that aggravates the deficit.

Such an excess of private investment over saving is what the housing boom financed by debt implies. American households are not saving enough to finance the country's investments.

Yet, using his "conclusion" Mr Bernanke builds a two-step argument to explain the US current account deficit.

First, while there is a necessary correspondence between the excess of investment over saving and the current account deficit, the causation really runs from the latter to the former. That is because there is a global savings glut, the US can sustain an excess of investment over saving. Second, the excess of investment over savings arises because of the effect that the savings glut has on interest rates, asset prices and exchange rates, although the pattern of asset-price changes was somewhat different before and after 2000, shifting from stock price inflation to real estate price inflation.

Thus the real argument is that the global savings glut creates the excess of investment over savings in the US. Between around 1996 and early 2000, it did this by affecting equity prices. The US was well placed to mediate these effects because of the development and adoption of new technologies that delivered increases in productivity, which together with low political risk, strong property rights, and a good regulatory environment, made the country exceptionally attractive to international investors during that period. As a result, "excess savings" flowed into the US.

According to Mr Bernanke, after 2000 global excess saving lowered interest rates, making it, rather than high equity prices, the principal cause of lower US saving. Low mortgage rates have supported record levels of home construction and strong gains in housing prices. The asset price effects of this housing boom has once again encouraged consumption spending, as the increase in housing wealth not only reduces the desire to save but provides access to credit to finance consumption.

Thus, events outside the US, especially the internally induced financial crises in emerging-market countries have, through their effects on equity values, house prices, real interest rates, and the exchange value of the dollar, widened the current account deficit in the US.

There, of course, remains the question as to why the current-account effects of the increase in desired global saving were felt disproportionately in the US relative to other industrial countries. Given his argument, Mr Bernanke cannot but point to the technology boom in the US and the ostensible "depth and sophistication" of its financial markets as factors that make it an attractive investment destination. But he too cannot ignore the role played by the status of the US dollar as the leading international reserve currency to explain why the saving flowing out of the developing world has been directed relatively more into dollar-denominated assets such as US treasury securities. However, what the first of the arguments manages to achieve is to obfuscate the puzzle as to why the dollar remains the reserve currency despite the loss of US competitiveness.

Unravelling the puzzle

If not obfuscated, the only way to unravel that puzzle would be to refer: i) to the crucial role played by US markets in the growth process of many countries, including China, India and much of East Asia; and ii) to the strategic and military dominance of the US and its aggressive expansionism. The first allows the US to demand a quid pro quo for access to its markets. The second provides the basis for the confidence that despite the widening current account deficit the US economy and the dollar are unlikely to experience a cumulative downward descent into recession.

In the event, the US Government faces no national budget constraint allowing it to use deficits to finance its global military misadventures and US households come to believe that they face no constraint in borrowing their way to prosperity in the belief that the notional values of their wealth, which rises because of speculation, will persist. As a result, the US experiences growth with a widening deficit, even when many other developed industrial economies are faced with slow growth or recession.

The problem of markets delivering unexpected outcomes, however, does not go away, since the possibility that the low interest rates that underlie the present situation may not continue. Interest rates can rise for two reasons:

First, foreign investors may fear that the dollar cannot continue to be sustained at anywhere near current levels and thus reduce their holding of treasury bonds and other dollar-denominated assets. The consequent decline in the prices of those assets would imply a rise in interest rates.

Second, any decline in the value of the dollar would trigger price increases because of the 16 per cent share of imports in US GDP. To deal with that price increase the Fed may have to raise interest rates. A rise in interest rates because of either of or both these causes can bring the housing boom to an end, lead to a sharp fall in consumption and precipitate a recession. This is the denouement that global managers in search of a "soft landing" have increasingly come to fear.

50 Comments:

At 10:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you get permission to (re)publish other people's writing?

 
At 7:54 AM, Blogger Peter Coy, BusinessWeek said...

Interesting. Please check out what I wrote about the latest academic study to argue that there's no U.S. housing bubble.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2005/09/housing_markets.html#more

Peter Coy
BusinessWeek

 
At 3:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems from all my readings, that the problem lies with one of or both of the following:
1) a psychological fear factor that most of the world has allowed themselves to fall victim that is hinged on the notion that if you do anything to hurt the consumer (i.e. 10 year note goes up to 6%) than you will be blamed for the global fallout (potential recession).
AND,OR
2) there is that printing press and you can just keep printing. Isn't odd that m3 expansion is running at greater than 5% per quarter for the past several quarters but the CPI numbers don't show this? What's the deal?

 
At 7:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to Peter Coy:

Actually a bubble pops when everybody(or at least s substantial part of the population) considers that price increases would continue ad infintum. Then we observe a last waive of what I call "capitulative" buying. People buy out of fear that if they dont do it today they would be totally priced out tomorrow. Thus the urgent need to buy now and "build wealth" etc. That is when you have people waiting in line&fist fights to buy houses and condos.

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger Dr. Potts said...

Are you the guy that makes HouseJockey.com ???

 
At 10:15 PM, Blogger Mitch Haase said...

I think the global savings glut is a myth and everyone is in for it. Check out my blog for more insight on the housing bubble.

http://mitchhaase.blogspot.com/

Sincerely,
Mitch Haase

 
At 12:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

from the other side of the Atlantic - Spain a hug and spirit for all the young people and people who look for a worthy house in which to live without mortgaging itself by the rest of its life. In Spain the bubble is dramatic but it is refusing systematically at all media of communication.

 
At 12:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

for more information about spanish housing bubble you can see http://www.viviendadigna.org

 
At 7:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm being stupid, but doesn't this mean that the best thing to do is to:

1. Liquidate that house ASAP
2. Convert your dollars to yen
3. Wait for the dollar to crash
4. Pro$it

?

Or, would it be better to put your cash in CD's and high interest savings?

 
At 4:31 PM, Anonymous Tim MMF said...

Very interesting reading. Thanks for sharing so much information. You might consider resizing the graphs, they get cut off because they're too big.

 
At 10:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where are the sources? With all of the assumptions made by the writers of this piece I'm left scratching my head. This document typifies why the blogosphere is no substitute for legitimate peer reviewed publications.

 
At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How to lowball a seller...

1. Put out lowball offers on multiple homes. If one bites you're ready to start dealing. Chances are if you put in a lowball offer all sellers will return with a number they feel comfortable with. (Which probably won't be close to your price) When they do show them what their neighbor is willing to sell for. There's a good chance when they see the neighbors number they'll try to go lower. This is the reverse of a bidding war. ;-)

2. Here's the second way to lowball a sellers requires two buyers working together. The buyer that does not want the house to be lowballed submits a REALLY low offer. What this does is shock the seller into a new realty of what their house is worth. If the owners accept the offer you "gracefully" try to bow out but, while doing so have buyer number two submit an offer at the same price. The seller will forget about buyer one and sell to buyer two. If the owners don't accept the offer you play with them a little then get out. At this point you "softened" the seller up to accepting a lower offer. This is where buyer two comes in knowing how low the seller will go. ;-)

*The second technique is something only buyers can do together (not agents) and it won't make friends if people find out about what your doing. So don't ever tell people how you got the house for the price you did.

 
At 2:48 PM, Blogger ying said...

Harvard study says there may be bumps along the way, but that the long-term health of the housing market is intact.
Housing boom 2.0
Harvard study says there may be bumps along the way, but that the long-term health of the housing market is intact.
By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
June 13, 2006: 3:18 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The housing market is entering a down cycle, according to a report from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, but is unlikely to undergo a severe reversal.
The market may face risks as interest rates rise, decreasing affordability and expanding inventories, according to the study, but the market will suffer only a modest downturn unless the broader economy collapses and jobs dry up.
"There may be tough times ahead," says Nicholas Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, "but housing will emerge stronger than ever."
Demographic changes and population expansion will help keep home demand - and prices - healthy. The number of homes needed to meet demand in the next 10 years will likely exceed the 18.1 million units built from 1995 to 2004.
Several factors are at work.
Booming household growth. The nation will add 1.37 million new households this year. Part of this is natural population increase but this has also been bolstered by foreign migrants.
Graying boomers. As boomers have aged and prospered, they have begun to buy vacation or second homes in increasing numbers. This trend will widen as they near retirement.
Changing household composition. Social and cultural changes add to the number of households. There are more single-person households than in the past. Fewer adult children live with their parents; they establish their own homes. Increases in divorce rates result in the division of multi-person households into smaller ones. Family sizes have shrunk; a community may have about the same population but more households.
Minority gains. Ownership among formerly under-represented minorities has increased. Black and Latin home ownership has always trailed that of whites but the past 10 years has seen minorities making great progress.
Downplaying the risks
The Harvard researchers downplay the risk in mortgages with adjustable rates and easy downpayment requirements. Those loans introduce uncertainty, some worry: if interest rates rise, owners could find themselves with much higher monthly payments and that could result in a big jump in foreclosures and forced sales, adding to home inventory and hurting prices.
The Harvard researchers don't expect that to happen, though. Most owners with risky loans have already seen their home values grow substantially. "Having significant home equity is the best protection against foreclosure because homeowners can sell at a profit if they cannot cover their mortgage payments."
Home equity accounted for a healthy 56 percent of the total value of primary residences in 2004, the most recent equity data available, according to the study. Ninety-four percent of homeowners had equity of 10 percent or more and 87 percent had equity of 20 percent or more. Only three percent of homeowners had equity stakes of less than five percent.
Even if home prices fall in the next few years, the drops are unlikely to erase all the equity of the great majority of homeowners, the Harvard researchers predict. And the interest rate declines that usually accompany such price drops would enable many borrowers to refinance their homes at favorable terms. All this should help prevent large price drops.
Government influence
Government regulations, by limiting supply, also make it unlikely that housing prices will fall greatly. Land use restrictions, zoning laws and building codes make building housing difficult and expensive.
As Lawrence Yun, managing director of quantitative research for the National Association of Realtors, points out, in general, places with expensive housing are often the hardest places to build.
"Builders tell me that getting paper work through in places like Atlanta, Indianapolis or Dallas is a fairly easy process. In other places, such as San Francisco, it's a horrifying experience," he says.
"In many areas," says Retsinas, "we see such an anti-development bias. And the trend is to more restrictions, not less, even though markets are softening."
The study's bottom line is that the U.S. economy is sound and that any softening in housing markets should firm up before long. As Retsinas says, however, it's a big country; a lot of different areas have their own characteristics and it's hard to generalize.
"Long term fundamentals are still positive," he says, "but some areas may be more susceptible to a slide."

 
At 8:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To all who are being misled by the harvard study... please check out their supporters, as described on their own web site... this group at harvard is nothing more than an extension of the housing industry itself. Their study is useless.

When searching for information about the housing bubble, it is critical to find information that comes from sources that are not connected in any way with the housing industry.

 
At 10:20 PM, Blogger mbarl said...

My name is Steven Krystofiak, President of the Mortgage Brokers Association for Responsible Lending. www.mbarl.org I have a letter in a word document form that highlights the risks of the current loan industry unrealized by regulators and economists alike, mainly due to stated income loans.
Email me at contact@mbarl.org if you want me to send you a copy.

~ Steve Krystofiak
13 main points in the letter are;
1. Stated income loans are associated with fraud, and started to become popular in 2002.
2. Banks originate these loans because they are profitable and then sell them to reduce their risk.
3. Fraud is encouraged by the banks
4. Stated income loans help no one.
5. Exotic loans originated with stated income are now causing foreclosures or forcing homeowners to refinance into negatively amortized loans.
6. Stated income loans are why home prices have skyrocketed. They have caused a large demand in the US housing supply.
7. Banks have sold their loans and have already made their profit. Investors will soon realize stated income loans are too risky and stop purchasing them.
8. Almost anyone can get a stated income loan for $950,000.
9. Stated income loans cost consumers hundreds of dollars a year because of higher interest rates.
10. Stated income loans allow tax cheats to purchase homes easier.
11. Stated income loans are not always faster than fully documented loans.
12. Appraised values are often inflated. Underwriters are basing their decision on inflated home values, inflated incomes and inflated assets. The only “real” number is the FICO (credit) score. This is why underwriters have become focused on FICO scores.
13. Rules are not enough, they must be enforced.

 
At 12:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Click here: Housing trouble may double! (but I have hard time with the bubble) - Blogging Stocks

 
At 3:00 PM, Blogger Housing Boom Gone Bust said...

Those graphs are hard to argue with..

 
At 2:22 AM, Anonymous Housing Bubble said...

The housing bubble is real. Just wait and see...stop stealing other sources.

 
At 8:57 AM, Blogger Larry Nusbaum said...

I have been hearing about the housing bubble for 5 years running now. That's a lot of "waiting".

There has never been a Real Estate bubble. Doesn't mean it can't happen now. But, what are the chances that if you bought a house for $500,000 today and the bubble "pops", that it's values goes down to $250,000 or even $150,000? And, can there be a financial bubble if it doesn't pop?

 
At 11:56 AM, Blogger Larry Nusbaum said...

I am not looking for the housing market to suddenly turn back up on a dime. Too much inventory to work through. Some of that inventory will drop off as sellers cancel their listings (or they expire) as they were unable to sell at prices that are no longer available. These are the ones who didn't have to sell, didn't have to move, didn't have a bad mortgage to refinance, but were willing to sell at inflated prices and didn't pull it off.

 
At 10:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have I read this before?


Read hundreds of reviews rating online Mortgage Lenders
Mortgage-Lender-Reviews.com

 
At 9:32 AM, Blogger Té la mà Maria said...

dejaros de xorradas y entrar :

irreverent, iconoclastic e liberty

http://telamamaria.blogspot.com

thank

 
At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The housing bubble is absolutely real. Gonna be scary for alot of folks.

 
At 2:50 PM, Anonymous MG said...

It already is for a lot of people:

http://www.arizonahousingbubble.com/2007/want-to-buy-a-house-not-so-fast-the-credit-crunch-is-making-home-loans-harder-and-harder-to-get/

 
At 1:31 PM, Blogger Baghead.of.anonrecordings.com said...

Maybe if Lenders would bite the bullet and do more real Short Sales, and if Real Estate Agents would step up to the market and take commission cuts for a needed service, we'd be in a better place in a few years.

I have new, free recordings on my website. The real estate agent who did this recording specializes in Short Sales and has a lot to say about why we are where we are.

www.AnonRecordings.com

 
At 1:48 AM, Blogger L Ron Hubbard said...

KJM Construction provides you with the work you want and the Arizona General contractor that you need.

http://www.kjmconstructionaz.com

 
At 3:55 PM, Blogger Short Sale Real Estate said...

You were right on the money with this housing crisis! Why did you stop posting? :(

 
At 11:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

this market is just getting crazier and crazier.

Check this out: http://www.flixya.com/photo/173755/housing_market_RIP

 
At 7:47 AM, Anonymous wall coverings said...

you have a really compelling argument. i suppose time will tell

 
At 4:37 AM, Anonymous conservatory furniture said...

Should we allow the so called goverment experts to tell us how we should spend, simply NO but there are so many sheep out there that panic and jump into line, recessions happen because the goverments want them to happen, not for any other reason, they shape the countries and economies, they point the way and the flock follows.

 
At 6:40 AM, Blogger Dana said...

I think the fault lies in our lack of education on the consumer end. No one really teaches real life finance to people. Also the consumers immediate gratification mindset. In addition, greed on the lenders part.
dana@redheadproperties.com

 
At 11:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.mortgage-lender-reviews.com

 
At 1:26 AM, Anonymous Retiredebetfreehappy said...

Bernanke's global savings glut argument is quite subtle, more subtle than I perhaps have recognized in the past.

Retirement Plans, Retirement Savings,Retirement Investments,Home based Business

 
At 12:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

People should keep their valuables secure in a an Office Safe or Sentry Safe

 
At 12:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mortgage Reviews

 
At 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Binding Machines

 
At 12:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

People still rely heavily on on manual typewriters and portable typewriters

 
At 6:22 PM, Anonymous headshots LA said...

.

 
At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

headshots in los angeles
headshots LA
head shots LA
headshots Los Angeles
cheap head shots LA
los angeles head shot
actors headshots
la photographers head shot
affordable head shots
la headshot coupon
children headshots
model headshots la
real estate headshot
affordable photographers LA

 
At 12:01 AM, Blogger FINGERPRINT LOCKs said...

fingerprint door locks
fingerprint safes
biometric time clock
biometric scanner
fingerprint reader
biometric time attendance
fingerprint time clock
fingerprint gun safe
biometric gun safe
biometric access control

 
At 2:37 PM, Blogger voyage home loans said...

Great Article Very Informative. This should be required reading for High School seniors in Economics Class.

 
At 11:02 PM, Anonymous McRealton said...

This blog gives us good knowledge of commercial and residential real estate prices. I know of an exciting website which helps people to buy and sell property. This company has a lot of foreclosure homes which can be bought at a cheap price. The discount varies from 60-80%. This company welcomes people willing to invest money and pays high returns for such people.

 
At 12:45 AM, Anonymous fingerprint door lock said...

,

 
At 1:24 AM, Anonymous Harry said...

There has been a glut in the economy on the whole.Still some real estate deals could be lucrative.Mcrealton i checked the link given by you.It seems absolute professionally done.

 
At 7:30 PM, Anonymous AMSEC said...

Interesting article

 
At 11:06 AM, Anonymous Biometric said...

MFS-45E
Cav-2000
Portable ID Scanner

 
At 8:14 AM, Anonymous margate florida real estate said...

Thanks for this post. There's definitely a lot of helpful information here. It's always interesting to analyze the position of the US in the savings race in relation to other countries, as well as the housing market. There is always a lot of talk about these subjects but this "talk" usually consists of someone's skewed opinion based on one or two facts, but you've really helped bring in loads of statistics with relevant points to sum up and help bring context to this data. Thanks again.

 
At 6:58 AM, Blogger vernongetzler said...

Well, it’s amazing. The miracle has been done. Hat’s off. Well done, as we know that “hard work always pays off”, after a long struggle with sincere effort it’s done.
-----------------------------
vernon
Best Savings Bonds

 
At 12:11 PM, Anonymous ID scanner for bars said...

Nice article

 
At 10:17 PM, Anonymous Extenze Ingredients said...

This is the denouement that global managers in search of a "soft landing" have increasingly come to fear.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home