Agreed on checking anti-deficiency laws.  Otherwise, I think this is entirely fair.  The banks pumped the air into our real estate bubble, then when it bursts they still want to walk with the profits.

Obviously, having LCTM on one's resume can be more of a liability than an asset, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the man is wrong about China.  It just means that one should be more hesitant to take his word alone for it.

 

I don't have any of my money in China, save for what I have there indirectly and not completely by choice due to the emerging-markets mutual funds my managed 401(k) invests in.  That's not because an LCTM alum told me not to invest there, but because the best information I've got (which of course is inevitably incomplete) made the prospect too risky for my liking.

 

Right, someone would have to be pretty sharp to have worked there really.

From the Dayton Daily News:

 

Commentary: Many fear American dream dying

 

By William Hershey, Staff Writer  Updated 11:15 PM Saturday, March 20, 2010

 

COLUMBUS — The American dream seems to be in hiding these days, in Ohio and across the country.

 

It’s hard to dream about opportunity and a better future when you don’t have a job.

 

It’s tough to even get to sleep at night if you’re worried that the bank’s going to take your house.

 

Americans and Ohioans in particular are dealing with both problems.

 

more: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/commentary-many-fear-american-dream-dying-610984.html

Updated 02.05.10, The Decline: The Geography of a Recession by LaToya Egwuekwe (OFFICIAL)

The truth is simple, home prices must be allowed to rebalance with income levels, funny loans must readjust, supply and demand must also rebalance, loans should be given for only what a person can truly afford and the foreclosure mess must have its day (years). The government can stretch the pain out, and it can fake a recovery, but at the end of the day reality will happen. I also believe that the taxpayer money that is being used for house buying assistance is only creating another round of home owners that will be in default down the road and upside down on their loans.

 

Curses, foiled again

Commentary: Housing's dead-cat bounce is deflated

 

"The extension and expansion of the home-buyer tax credit that Congress enacted in late November in hopes of spurring sales has only placed a hex on the market.

 

Sales of existing homes fell in February, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday, marking a string of three straight declines since the tax credit got its second life. Just as vexing: The inventory of homes for sale climbed quite a bit, and median prices continued to decline, although at a slowing pace."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/housings-dead-cat-bounce-now-deflated-2010-03-23

 

The euro system is really taking a beating right now and so will the european lifestyle in many of its countries. Add in population decline for many, a lack of workforce to off set the retiring force and you have a very nasty economic mix.

 

Greek Crisis Risks Boiling Over

 

"The Greek crisis has reached a new level. What started as a problem with the fiscal credibility of one euro-zone state has now exposed political fault lines running through the whole currency bloc."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704896104575139480622261378.html

 

U.S. stock futures decline after data

Portugal downgraded as Greece worries continue

 

"Fitch also downgraded the rating of Portugal to AA- from AA and kept the country's outlook on negative, hurting Portuguese stocks including Portugal Telecom."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-futures-drop-before-durables-data-euro-sinks-2010-03-24?dist=beforebell

 

 

I don't think population decline is a bad thing for almost any country right now. Mechanization and the computer have taken so much work from people that the price of human labor is artificially depressed.

^A big problem re: population decline is the nature of the welfare state.  My understanding is that things like Social Security and those types of things rely on immediate transfer payments from those who are working to those who are retired.  A lot of pension funds were designed to operate this way as well.

Indeed, LK.  Population decline sucks when it's the young and productive segment declining.  A corollary is that the interests of that smaller youth segment will consistently lose at the ballot box, so until the larger aged population dies off, the youth will do exactly as they're told economically.  They'll pay on their own student loans plus their parents' retirement, even though they won't get the retirement and the parents didn't have the student loans.  And the parents had tons of great entry level work opportunities, with high social mobility... while the kids have been rendered physically obsolete, and need perhaps multiple degrees to be economically viable.  Never has there been a larger "transfer payment."

I don't think population decline is a bad thing for almost any country right now. Mechanization and the computer have taken so much work from people that the price of human labor is artificially depressed.

 

It can become a very bad thing if the decline is showing up in the younger generations (and it is). Its also a very big issue if you are having population decline and an increase in retirement individuals at the same time. This means you have less workers trying to fund the rapidly growing retirement segment. If the country happens to be a large welfare state then this becomes almost overwhelming, economically. This is happening across most of Europe, Japan, and Russia and we are only in the first inning of this massive demographic shift.

 

The other issue is related to infrastructure. If a country has built cities and transportation networks to support a population of 100 million and in 50 years their population is going to fall to 75 million then you have a major problem. First, you no long can afford to operate everything and you start seeing huge vacancy rates in buildings. This is now starting to happen in parts of Europe and Japan. Japan has already started to 'mothball' small towns that are becoming empty.

 

I also think that younger generations around the developed world will become more and more disenchanted if they see less services, higher taxes and little or no retirement options.

I don't think population decline is a bad thing for almost any country right now. Mechanization and the computer have taken so much work from people that the price of human labor is artificially depressed.

^A big problem re: population decline is the nature of the welfare state.  My understanding is that things like Social Security and those types of things rely on immediate transfer payments from those who are working to those who are retired.  A lot of pension funds were designed to operate this way as well.

 

These two things combined present what I believe to be the biggest conundrum for the West for this century.

 

I wonder how China is positioned for this. They are forcing population decline, with their one-child policy, but they are starting with a huge population. I don't know what kind of welfare state they might have. Being "communist," you'd think they have a big one. But they don't seem to actually be very communist.

Even ignoring the Ponzi scheme of some of our welfare programs, just focusing on the question of population decline at the highest level: Show me a healthy country with a population that is actually decreasing.  I know that correlation is not causation, but at some level, correlations become strong enough that they demand respect even if underlying causal factors are not understood.  Declining population is almost never correlated with a vibrant society--and I'll even go so far as to extend that beyond mere material economic vibrancy.  You really have to wonder about a society in which no one wants to have a child.

The intersection of the housing crisis and population is a problem in many US cities.  Places that aren't growing very fast or are shrinking (and Ohio has plenty of these) have a much harder time adjusting to the overhang. Gov't smoothing the pain might help a city like Columbus grow into its oversupply, but not other places.

 

arenn, did you get quoted in Scene this week? 

 

Adjusting will be very tough for places like Cleveland.  Another problem for Cleveland in particular is that so much of its housing is an obsolete format (wooden over/unders), and wouldn't be highly marketable even in top condition.  Supply needs to be reduced, with bulldozers. 

 

On the good side: Cleveland, outside of downtown, has a dearth of appropriate housing for single professionals who work in the city.  So unlike maybe Youngstown/Detroit/Buffalo, Cleveland actually has unmet demand to address.  That said, we still need a fleet of bulldozers to roll through.  The mayor's neighborhood-level plans, released several years ago, openly acknowledge that obsolete housing forms are holding the city back.

For those that are interested, here are a couple of quick reads on this subject.

The social and economic impacts are going to very pronounced over the next 40 years or so.

 

Japan

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20669.php

 

Europe

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202224,00.html

 

arenn,

Nice article about your speech in the IBJ yesterday.

On the good side: Cleveland, outside of downtown, has a dearth of appropriate housing for single professionals who work in the city. So unlike maybe Youngstown/Detroit/Buffalo, Cleveland actually has unmet demand to address. That said, we still need a fleet of bulldozers to roll through. The mayor's neighborhood-level plans, released several years ago, openly acknowledge that obsolete housing forms are holding the city back.

 

Interesting.  This would predate my move to this area.  I'm encouraged to hear that there's at least a political acknowledgment that a little therapeutic dynamite might be in order.  Do you have a link to these neighborhood-level plans you mentioned?

Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1)

 

"March 25 (Bloomberg) -- More than half of U.S. borrowers who received loan modifications on delinquent mortgages defaulted again after nine months, according to a federal report."

 

"Modifications are “clearly not working well and it’s not a surprise,” said Sam Khater, a senior economist at First American CoreLogic in Tysons Corner, Virginia. “It’s pointless to rewrite these loans because they’re underwater.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-25/half-of-u-s-home-loan-modifications-default-again-update1-.html

 

New Plan to Cut Some Mortgage Balances

 

"The White House will announce Friday an expansion of its foreclosure-prevention efforts to include reducing mortgage loan balances for some borrowers, a controversial step that policy makers have long resisted, people familiar with the plans said."

 

"Under the plan, the Federal Housing Administration will take on a much bigger role in government efforts to avert foreclosures by allowing some homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth to refinance into government-backed loans, according to people familiar with the plans."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575143843436282202.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

 

This will only increase the number of defaults. There are going to be some very unhappy neighbors when they find out that the house next door got its mortgage written down to a lower dollar value, while their mortgage stays the same. More and more people are going to walk away, even if they could afford to pay. This will also drive down prices in neighborhoods even more. The FEDs and Wall Street need to stop the manipulation before it completely destroys the American landscape and the concept of risk.

Interesting.  This would predate my move to this area.  I'm encouraged to hear that there's at least a political acknowledgment that a little therapeutic dynamite might be in order.  Do you have a link to these neighborhood-level plans you mentioned?

 

These plans I referred to do not involve demolition!  Not overtly, anyway, falling a step short of political acknowledgement.  Mass demo is my own little recipe.  These plans should be available on Frank Jackson's website.  They're from early in his 1st term and I don't remember what they're even called.  But they did a pretty thorough job identifying goals and challenges for each neighborhood.  The "obsolete housing" bit came up for places like Mt. Pleasant.  They left hanging the question of what a city might do when a city determines that entire blocks of its housing are obsolete.   

^^ I'm actually surprised that Obama hasn't supported allowing cramdowns on primary residences in chapter 13 bankruptcy ... it would be a 3-page bill and would put primary residences on the same footing as vacation homes and yachts.

^^ I'm actually surprised that Obama hasn't supported allowing cramdowns on primary residences in chapter 13 bankruptcy ... it would be a 3-page bill and would put primary residences on the same footing as vacation homes and yachts.

 

Give it time. I think we are heading in that direction.

"Show me a healthy country with a population that is actually decreasing.

You really have to wonder about a country in which no one wants to have a child."

 

    Japan is becoming a country with decreasing population. Italy is close.

 

    England, France, Germany, Canada, and Austrailia have decreasing native populations but the overall population is growning due to immigrants and their children.

 

    The World Health Organization (WHO) makes global population estimates. Years ago, a few countries that had very low growth rates or declining population were considered anomalys - something strange must be going on there. Since then, more and more countries are reaching peak population, or are projected to in the near future. Birth rates are declining worldwide.

 

    Whether these countries are "healthy" or not is your opinion. The fact is that birth rates are dropping worldwide, and the developed countries generally have the lowest birth rates.

 

    123 countries have birth rates higher than the commonly accepted replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. 100 countries have birth rates lower than 2.1.

 

    As of 2009, the United States is at 2.05, just a tad under replacement levels.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

 

 

I think we are starting to see the beginning of the next leg down in housing.

 

Waiting for the other shoe to drop

Fears are growing of a second dip in the housing market

 

"Yet the housing-market recovery has almost run out of steam. Sales of new and existing homes have fallen for three consecutive months. As a result inventories have grown, putting downward pressure on home values. According to some measures, prices are dropping again: the Federal Housing Finance Agency reported national declines in December and January."

http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15772789

"Show me a healthy country with a population that is actually decreasing.

You really have to wonder about a country in which no one wants to have a child."

 

Japan is becoming a country with decreasing population. Italy is close.

 

England, France, Germany, Canada, and Austrailia have decreasing native populations but the overall population is growning due to immigrants and their children.

 

And you think this is good for these countries?  I'm well aware of these statistics.  I just don't see them as a good thing.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.  Those are very troubling trajectories.

I wouldn't say that "wanting to have a kid" is a ringing endorsement of one's surroundings.  This is the top 10 nations by Fertility Rate (live births per woman)

 

(Rank)(Country)('00-'05)('05-'10)

1 Niger 7.45 7.19

2 Guinea-Bissau 7.10 7.07

3 Afghanistan 7.48 7.07

4 Burundi 6.80 6.80

5 Liberia 6.80 6.77

6 Democratic Republic of the Congo 6.70 6.70

7 East Timor 6.96 6.53

8 Mali 6.70 6.52

9 Sierra Leone 6.50 6.47

10 Uganda 6.75 6.46

 

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

Well, first off, query just how much women in those countries really "want" families that size.  However, I encourage people who think that a declining population would be good for these countries to actually read the Japanese, Italian, etc. press and see what the people actually living there think.  The accounts I've read from in-country media definitely aren't treating this as some kind of positive or benign sociological development, though they're also generally not treating it as impending Armageddon.

 

  Good or bad, declining birth rates are a fact of life. You might as well get used to it.

 

 

"Good or bad, the Roman Empire is a fact of life.  You might as well get used to it." --anonymous Gaul, 50 A.D.

I think in the short-term (in this case 50 years or so) declining birth rates have negative consequences. But in the long term they are probably for the better.

These types of statements usually are preludes to the next big problem. Remember, these are the same organizations that told us that subprime was contained, we would not have a recession, the banks are fine, and home prices would not drop significantly. It doesn't take a genius to drive around and see all the vacant store fronts and half filled or less office buildings.

 

Geithner: Commercial real estate loans problematic

 

"WASHINGTON — Mounting losses from commercial real estate loans will continue to be a problem for the U.S. and especially smaller banks, but it can be managed, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Monday."

 

"Commercial real estate's still going to be a problem for the country," Geithner said in an interview with CNBC. "But we can manage through this process."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iW_MEpD2t1ZKHYld6JokEpEWHtOwD9EOKUBO1

However, I encourage people who think that a declining population would be good for these countries to actually read the Japanese, Italian, etc. press and see what the people actually living there think. The accounts I've read from in-country media definitely aren't treating this as some kind of positive or benign sociological development, though they're also generally not treating it as impending Armageddon.

 

That may all be true, but I think folks are taking issue with your claim that Italy and Japan, for example, are not "healthy" and do not have a "vibrant society."  Convincing people that Arizona has a more vibrant society than Italy may be tough sell.

However, I encourage people who think that a declining population would be good for these countries to actually read the Japanese, Italian, etc. press and see what the people actually living there think.  The accounts I've read from in-country media definitely aren't treating this as some kind of positive or benign sociological development, though they're also generally not treating it as impending Armageddon.

 

That may all be true, but I think folks are taking issue with your claim that Italy and Japan, for example, are not "healthy" and do not have a "vibrant society."  Convincing people that Arizona has a more vibrant society than Italy may be tough sell.

 

I think this is a discussion about what is now and what may be. Today Italy, Spain, Japan are still functions relatively well, but, over the next 40 years it may be a different story. Japan is very aware their place as a major economic power is in danger and places like Italy and Spain are realizing they simply will not be able to pay for many of the programs and infrastructure that they currently have or need. The lose of the programs and financial ability to maintain their current system in 40 years may very well alter how 'healthy' their country will be. Greece, Portugal and soon to be Spain already are having their financial ratings cut because their debt levels to provide their services 'lifestyle' are become less and less sustainable.

 

Some of the reasoning behind the creation of the European Union and the Euro was to postpone this on coming demographic and financial change in many of the european countries.

I think in the short-term (in this case 50 years or so) declining birth rates have negative consequences. But in the long term they are probably for the better.

 

How?  How would America be better with only 150 million people in it instead of 300 million, whether it's in 2050 or 2150 or 2250?

Greece, Portugal and soon to be Spain already are having their financial ratings cut because their debt levels to provide their services 'lifestyle' are become less and less sustainable.

 

Some of the reasoning behind the creation of the European Union and the Euro was to postpone this on coming demographic and financial change in many of the european countries.

 

The current problems in Spain & Portugal have completely different origins from those in Greece, though the rigidity of the Euro isn't helping any of those countries.

 

Anyone who thinks that demographic decline isn't serious is kidding themselves.  To use the words of one of the worst Defense Secretaries we've ever had, the effects of demographic decline is a "known unknown".

I think this is a discussion about what is now and what may be. Today Italy, Spain, Japan are still functions relatively well, but, over the next 40 years it may be a different story.

 

Well, yes.  But saying that a declining population is an indication that a place is already unhealthy (whatever that means) or lacking a vibrant society seems a bit of a stretch.  Or at least an unexamined assumption.  People have fewer children for many reasons.

I think this is a discussion about what is now and what may be. Today Italy, Spain, Japan are still functions relatively well, but, over the next 40 years it may be a different story.

 

Well, yes.  But saying that a declining population is an indication that a place is already unhealthy (whatever that means) or lacking a vibrant society seems a bit of a stretch.  Or at least an unexamined assumption.  People have fewer children for many reasons.

 

Shrug.  Writing off population decline as benign seems like an unexamined assumption to me.  And the fact that people cite many reasons for not having children doesn't change the macro-level effects of that decision.  Individual-level decision-making mechanisms don't always translate well into a collective context.

^Bleh, this is when the internet and the back and forth posting thing (which I pushed) stinks.  Sorry.  I don't write off population decline as a threat to future economic stability, I promise.  I guess I just don't understand why it's an indictment of the current social conditions of a country, which is how I interpreted some of your posts.  Italy's current fertility rate isn't appreciably different from several other European and developed Asian countries- it's population decline is likely due also to its current age distribution and relatively low rates of immigration and god knows what else.  And actually, Italy's fertility rate has risen more than 10-15% since the mid 1990s- though it's still below replacement level.  The US fertility rate is almost exactly at replacement rate, so our population will be growing only because of immigration if current conditions hold (which, of course, they may not).  This google page is incredibly fun to play with:

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=US+fertility+rate#met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:USA:FRA:RUS:ITA:CZE:POL

 

France, quite famously, has been aggressive with its governmental incentives to increase fertility, and France has indeed closed some of the gap with the US.  Who knows if its the the incentives at work or other factors, but I imagine it's something Italy and other countries are eying if they haven't yet implemented.

 

But anyway, this has taken us pretty far off topic for which I apologize for.

^---- It depends on who you are. If you are a manufacturer of soap, and population is increasing, you have the potential to increase sales simply by letting your market expand by default. If population is declining, it will be harder to expand your market. This also applies to every demographic segment. If your product is targeted to 5 year old children, your potential market will vary with the number of 5 year old children.

 

    Of course, the average income of your target demographic is important, too. Rich people will probably buy more soap than poor people. Population is just one component of the economy.

arenn, did you get quoted in Scene this week? 

 

If you are talking about clevelandscene.com, I believe the answer is Yes, though they didn't talk to me for the piece.  They just alluded to some of my writing.

arenn,

Nice article about your speech in the IBJ yesterday.

 

Thank you!

 

France, quite famously, has been aggressive with its governmental incentives to increase fertility, and France has indeed closed some of the gap with the US.  Who knows if its the the incentives at work or other factors, but I imagine it's something Italy and other countries are eying if they haven't yet implemented.

 

France also has high levels of immigrants who generally have higher fertility rates. France bans collecting statistics about racial or other origins, so we don't know how much of its high birth rate is due simply to more recent arrivals from North Africa, for example. Itlay's lower rate of immigration might show what native birthrates look like.

 

^Well sure, but same is true in the US where Hispanic immigrants and their decedents have much higher fertility rates than white women.  Hence observations like: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1971075,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular

They finally have confirmed what most believed, the taxpayer is holding a BIG BAG of CRAP. Wall Street has been allowed to dump the risk on us and take the profits that they made through the boom and move on. While no one will every challenge the FEDs on this, there is a good chance what they did wasn't even legal by our laws.

 

Fed Reveals Bear Stearns Assets It Swallowed in Firm’s Rescue

 

“The Fed absorbed that risk on its balance sheet and is now seen to be holding problematic, legacy assets,” said Vincent Reinhart, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington who was the central bank’s monetary- affairs director from 2001 to 2007. “There is both an impairment to its balance sheet and its reputation.”

 

"The Bear Stearns deal marked a turning point in the financial crisis for the Fed. By putting taxpayers at risk in financing the rescue, the central bank was engaging in fiscal policy, normally the domain of Congress and the U.S. Treasury, said Marvin Goodfriend, a former Richmond Fed policy adviser who is now an economist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601010&sid=aZA_RWY3IJ2I

^Taxpayers are the blame too by not paying their bills.

^Taxpayers are the blame too by not paying their bills.

 

While I agree some what. To me this was about private companies deciding to loan money on extremely risky investments. They made a massive amount of money when these loans were made but, didn't like it or couldn't afford to deal with the risk. These are nothing more than business deals, if a homeowner defaults on a loan (business deal) then the bank gets the asset and has legal options to recover some of the loses (in some states). There was nothing in these business deal contracts that said, if the loan (risk) is defaulted on then all the other taxpayers should shoulder the loses. You don't see them offering the profits to the taxpayers?

 

The problem is the banks and Wall Street firms love the upside but, have found the downside not as much fun. So, they are unloading the downside on all the taxpayers and taking their record bonus to the yacht club. 

 

I know we have also talked about the concept of moral obligation, which I have no problem with as long as its applies to both sides. For years now Wall Street and the Banks are functions with the mentality that the moral obligation is one sided.

Are interest and profits too high to be sustained long term? In other words if investments didn't seek such an high margin of return. Would we be better off??? I mean if they can make a profit off 5% interest why try to go further and try to get 14% interest in returns???

Are interest and profits too high to be sustained long term? In other words if investments didn't seek such an high margin of return. Would we be better off??? I mean if they can make a profit off 5% interest why try to go further and try to get 14% interest in returns???

 

I think the private sector has the right to maximize their profits (5%, 14%, etc.). But, their risk usually grows with those margins. Its a private business transaction, they have the right to 14% or 50% but, they also must shoulder the 14% or 50% or 100% chance of loses as well.

 

As you know, there was much more to all of this. Including greed all both sides. This greed on Wall Street part included taking even more risk for profit by repackaging these loans and selling them off to other nations and institutions. Of course most of those packages had reversion clauses and/or insurance that went with them. So when the deals started going bad these buyers of these packaged loans came calling to collect. This is why the FEDs used more taxpayer money to shore up/bailout/takeover AIG. They were the insurance company for many of these toxic derivatives. This has now put the taxpayer on the hook for billions more that will never be recovered.

Are interest and profits too high to be sustained long term? In other words if investments didn't seek such an high margin of return. Would we be better off??? I mean if they can make a profit off 5% interest why try to go further and try to get 14% interest in returns???

 

At the micro level, the rate of return (interest, return on equity, etc.) reflects the riskiness of the investment.  I myself actually own some distressed bank debt at the moment, which has a nominal rate of return of 13.9%, reflecting the fact that there's a good chance that that bank won't last until the bond matures.  The same applies when banks loan money: People with poor credit will pay more for loans because there's a greater known risk that they'll be unable to repay it; however, if you have 100 people given such loans, enough of them will repay it at the higher interest rate so that the bank can still stay solvent even in spite of the defaults--unless, of course, the default rate is surprisingly high.

 

At the macro level, of course, the issue is that a high default rate, if widespread enough, starts to have effects on entire communities.

 

If you've got 100 homes on a block and one is in foreclosure, you've got a borrower with a problem and a bank with a problem.  If you've got 100 homes on a block and 80 are in foreclosure, you've got an entire neighborhood with a problem and a banking industry with a problem.

At the micro level, the rate of return (interest, return on equity, etc.) reflects the riskiness of the investment. I myself actually own some distressed bank debt at the moment, which has a nominal rate of return of 13.9%, reflecting the fact that there's a good chance that that bank won't last until the bond matures. The same applies when banks loan money: People with poor credit will pay more for loans because there's a greater known risk that they'll be unable to repay it; however, if you have 100 people given such loans, enough of them will repay it at the higher interest rate so that the bank can still stay solvent even in spite of the defaults--unless, of course, the default rate is surprisingly high.

 

Where can I get some distressed bank debt?

^ the exurbs.

^ the exurbs.

 

LOL.  Who wants a McCraptastic Mansion these days?  LOL