Thursday, December 18, 2008

$23 BBL. The oil bubble.

7 year chart...clearly a bubble!



One year chart

10 comments:

Bakonewbie said...

Wow... that is ugly. (glad I did not decide to go for an oil job!)

What do you know about this second wave of foreclosures I keep hearing about. (alt A's?) I have heard some talk on the news but what I have heard does not make a lot of sense. The stories that seemed to have good info I only caught the last half or so.
Seems that they are looking for a trillion + in mortgages to dump in 09? From what I caught, seemed like more were out there than what has already defaulted? (that is scary!)
Any info on that?

Bakersfield Bubble said...

The second wave of Alt-A', Prime and other debt will be much bigger (in $$ amounts) than subprime.

Calculated risk and other bloggers have posted the charts from an investment bank (Credit Suisse, I think) that lay out the resets...many occur in 2009, but most happen in 2010. Its closer to $2 trillion.

I think it will hurt other areas more than us. Mainly because a lot of these prodcuts were used in high priced areas as the only way to get into a home. OC, SF, LA, etc...We will suffer, but no where near the scale of what we have been through in the first wave of resets (subprime)

Engineering Guy said...

I wish that it wasn't true since i'm in the industry but it is. . . ..

Bakersfield Bubble said...

I wish it wasn't true either...we will all suffer from depressed prices. If we get the teens it might get ugly...shit!

Anonymous said...

Well in 99, the Shrub said $35 a barrel oil was to much to pay and he would do something if elected. Heck of a job Shrub!!!!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, just blame Bush. Blame Bush for global warming, too.

Just wait for "The One" B. Hussein Obama to get into office.

We'll all be saved because he's going to tax the rich and "stimulate" the economy back to life with his presence and 1 trillion dollars worth of make work programs.

Look at how successful the Democrats have run California! San Francisco is the model of government efficiency, as well.

Anonymous said...

WOW - it’s good to see Shrub voter derangement syndrome is still alive and well!

I guess it makes too much logic to blame the man and party that were in control during the years that created this mess!! Then again, can we really blame the Shrub? After all he only listened to drughead as he repeatedly announcement that all was peachy.

By the way, how’s Orange County working out for ya? Still Bankrupt?

Anonymous said...

The Republicans created the housing bubble?

Shirley, you are joking.

And I'm calling you Shirley!

FYI, the President's Administration tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie but they were shot down by the Democrats.

Clinton deregulated the financial industry that then brought us all of the toxic paper that is now worthless.

Realestateslasher said...

Why can't we just do a loan modification, with no apraisl, 4.5% 30 yr fixed, FHA and keep looking ahead for a better 2009. Great way to start the year! Look at the new buyers, they get interest free $7,500 tax break, I see a light or is it a lantern at the end of the tunnel............

Anonymous said...

The Repub's lets not regulate anything attitude is what got us in the mess.

“Maybe I was asleep at the switch,” Mr. Card said in an interview. -- ENOUGH SAID

SO MUCH FOR THE ITS BILLY'S FAULT.

BUT JUST IN CASE THAT DIDN'T WAKE YOU UP TO THE FAILURE OF REPUBLICAN CONTROL! Here's some reading for ya.

"Mr. Bush populated the financial system’s alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

The president’s first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a “kinder, gentler” agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general’s report.

As for Mr. Bush’s banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.

The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general, said, “They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West.”

The president did push rules aimed at forcing lenders to more clearly explain loan terms. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.

In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush’s re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not finalize the new rules until last month.

Among the Republican Party’s top 10 donors in 2004 was Roland Arnall. He founded Ameriquest, then the nation’s largest lender in the subprime market, which focuses on less creditworthy borrowers. In July 2005, the company agreed to set aside $325 million to settle allegations in 30 states that it had preyed on borrowers with hidden fees and ballooning payments. It was an early signal that deceptive lending practices, which would later set off a wave of foreclosures, were widespread.

Andrew H. Card Jr., Mr. Bush’s former chief of staff, said White House aides discussed Ameriquest’s troubles, though not what they might portend for the economy. Mr. Bush had just nominated Mr. Arnall as his ambassador to the Netherlands, and the White House was primarily concerned with making sure he would be confirmed.

“Maybe I was asleep at the switch,” Mr. Card said in an interview.

Brian Montgomery, the Federal Housing Administration commissioner, understood the significance. His agency insures home loans, traditionally for the same low-income minority borrowers Mr. Bush wanted to help. When he arrived in June 2005, he was shocked to find those customers had been lured away by the “fool’s gold” of subprime loans. The Ameriquest settlement, he said, reinforced his concern that the industry was exploiting borrowers.

In December 2005, Mr. Montgomery drafted a memo and brought it to the White House. “I don’t think this is what the president had in mind here,” he recalled telling Ryan Streeter, then the president’s chief housing policy analyst.

It was an opportunity to address the risky subprime lending practices head on. But that was never seriously discussed. More senior aides, like Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political strategist, were wary of overly regulating an industry that, Mr. Rove said in an interview, provided “a valuable service to people who could not otherwise get credit.” While he had some concerns about the industry’s practices, he said, “it did provide an opportunity for people, a lot of whom are still in their houses today."'