Obama's Nobel Acceptance Speech

[SEC=UGA]

what do you consider quick.

 

I consider "immediately" quick.

[The Mucca]

Kinda completely disagree with you here.

 

What on earth is he supposed to do by himself without cooperation of other agencies? What magical superpowers do you think he possesses that is refuses to use on a daily basis?

 

What exactly do you EXPECT him to do that he hasnt done? Most righties instead of focusing on solutions, seem content with just sitting back and refusing to participate in the governance process. The Republican Party could look like CHAMPS right now and take an active leadership role by actually WORKING on concrete plans for our nation. Instead they prefer to send super secret chain e-mails to Lady hawke and just sit on the sidelines.

 

get in the game and make a difference, or else ya forfeit your right to complain about the outcome of the game

 

Since he has control over the House and Senate, the left is not even listening to the Rep possible solutions.

They can't even agree on the crap they come up with themselves. Reid/Pelosi need to go, they are far worse

then Obama.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I consider "immediately" quick.

well you will be disappointed many times over. things do not happen quick when it comes to the government.

[bpwallace49]

Since he has control over the House and Senate, the left is not even listening to the Rep possible solutions.

They can't even agree on the crap they come up with themselves. Reid/Pelosi need to go, they are far worse

then Obama.

 

I agree with you on Reid/Pelosi, but you are DEAD WRONG over not listening. The right has opposed anything "not" theirs in lockstep since Obama took office.

 

Help be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

It is indicative of all politicians that only care about their own vested self interest . . .

[yo mama]

well you will be disappointed many times over. things do not happen quick when it comes to the government.

That's not completely true. They are quick to blame and shift blame.

[SEC=UGA]

well you will be disappointed many times over. things do not happen quick when it comes to the government.

 

Absolutely, I will. THat is why I don't want the government providing the solutions to these problems.

 

It is impossible to gauge whether this recovery would have come about more quickly or less quickly w/or without the government bail out. But, in my estimation I feel that we would be going through the same cycle at the same time without the bail out, only we would have done it without the government spending hundreds of billion of taxpayers dollars and essentially running certain private companies.

 

I also believe that due to the government bail out of the banks that they have essentially slowed the flow of credit to businesses and individuals, something necessary to get the economy rolling again.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Absolutely, I will. THat is why I don't want the government providing the solutions to these problems.

 

It is impossible to gauge whether this recovery would have come about more quickly or less quickly w/or without the government bail out. But, in my estimation I feel that we would be going through the same cycle at the same time without the bail out, only we would have done it without the government spending hundreds of billion of taxpayers dollars and essentially running certain private companies.

 

I also believe that due to the government bail out of the banks that they have essentially slowed the flow of credit to businesses and individuals, something necessary to get the economy rolling again.

 

The credit markets were frozen and only due to government intervention did they thaw. Your post makes no sense. It's kind of like saying water is not wet.

[i_am_the_swammi]

You're kidding, right... I'll capitulate, he may not have used the words "quick fix", but the tenor of his speeches have been that the recovery will come more quickly via government intervention and the introduction of TARP funds...

 

the he was 100% correct.

 

That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth.

 

it did jumpstart job creation and set the base for long-term growth

 

Further, I think due to TARP things have become even more tenuous. The government selectively bailed out financial institutions that were too big to fail... From this Wells Fargo, BofA, Chase managed to purchase other banks, large banks, who did not receive TARP funds. This has created even larger banks and consolidated assets into fewer hands. There needs to be an antitrust suit filed on behalf of the citizens of the US regarding this as essentially the US government has consolidated the banking indstry into the hands of the chosen few; a chosen few that, through legislation regarding institutions who have received TARP funds, are essentially partially controlled by the government.

 

I can see your point here, but do you realize what would have happened if WF, BoA, Chase, etc had been allowed to fail? Most have no idea the impact it would have had on our economic system had our major banks (and auto insutry) been simultaneously flushed away. There is no historical precedence for how bad it would have been.

For you to make any assertion that my problems w. TARP stem primarily from a loathing of the current administration is at the least inaccurate and at most a purposeful disregard for the entirety of my post on your part.

 

my apologies...i did not intend to come off that way.

[i_am_the_swammi]

the left is not even listening to the Rep possible solutions.

 

I found this tidbit amusing, not because it isn't true, but because this kettle really is black.

[SEC=UGA]

The credit markets were frozen and only due to government intervention did they thaw. Your post makes no sense. It's kind of like saying water is not wet.

 

 

THey are still frozen if you look at historic trends, especially in real estate development. You can't get a loan in many areas, even if you are among the most credit worthy of clients. Banks are still in a deep freeze and have been put in this situation due to TARP regulations demanding they keep particular ratios of assets to debt. Further, banks are using revenue to repay TARP and get out from under the thumb of the government restrictions on their activities, thus they are not originating as many commercial loans. Spoke w. a local bank president the other day at the chamber of commerece meeting, he said they are not and will not actively seek commercial loans for at least another six months. That and the CMBS market has disappeared.

 

Do me a favor, call a bank's commercial mortgage department, any bank. After you get someone on the phone, tell them you want to build a 3 to 10 million dollar apartment comples, retail center, self storage facility, et.... Tell them you have 20% equity(loan to cost or loan to value, doesn't matter) to put down, tell them that you already have a portfolio of properties worth 36 million and have 18 million of equity in those, tell them you have a spotless credit score and have positive cash flow on all your properties. Ask them if they would even consider lending for your project, a project that has a 5 year IRR of 26%+, is in a prime location demographically, etc... They will say, no Cap'n, we won't lend to you...

Edited December 11, 2009 by SEC=UGA

[wiegie]

THey are still frozen if you look at historic trends,

if you look at things like the Ted spread or A2/P2 spread, you will see that 14 months ago, we were on the verge of an absolute financial collapse and we are nowhere near there anymore. Does that mean that things are perfect now? No. But they are MUCH MUCH MUCH better than they were.

[Ursa Majoris]

I found this tidbit amusing, not because it isn't true, but because this kettle really is black.

+1. An astounding statement.

 

THey are still frozen if you look at historic trends, especially in real estate development. You can't get a loan in many areas, even if you are among the most credit worthy of clients. Banks are still in a deep freeze and have been put in this situation due to TARP regulations demanding they keep particular ratios of assets to debt. Further, banks are using revenue to repay TARP and get out from under the thumb of the government restrictions on their activities, thus they are not originating as many commercial loans. Spoke w. a local bank president the other day at the chamber of commerece meeting, he said they are not and will not actively seek commercial loans for at least another six months. That and the CMBS market has disappeared.

You don't think maintaining a higher level of asset to debt ratio is a good thing? Isn't that exactly what Joe and Jill Sixpack are doing? Isn't that what people, businesses and the country at large SHOULD be doing? Wasn't it overstretched debt that collapsed the house of cards in the first place?

[SEC=UGA]

+1. An astounding statement.

 

 

You don't think maintaining a higher level of asset to debt ratio is a good thing? Isn't that exactly what Joe and Jill Sixpack are doing? Isn't that what people, businesses and the country at large SHOULD be doing? Wasn't it overstretched debt that collapsed the house of cards in the first place?

 

Personal debt, yes. Extending debt to unqualified people, yes. But now, even if you are very qualified, you still vcan't get a loan for a commercial development project.

[SEC=UGA]

if you look at things like the Ted spread or A2/P2 spread, you will see that 14 months ago, we were on the verge of an absolute financial collapse and we are nowhere near there anymore. Does that mean that things are perfect now? No. But they are MUCH MUCH MUCH better than they were.

 

And we can attribute that to TARP? Or, is it a natural cycle that would have occured? These are the things we can't accurately measure...

[Ursa Majoris]

Personal debt, yes. Extending debt to unqualified people, yes. But now, even if you are very qualified, you still vcan't get a loan for a commercial development project.

The pendulum has swung the other way as it always does. FWIW, I was able to get $40k worth of interest-free credit for a kitchen project with a short phone call three weeks ago.

[The Mucca]

I can see your point here, but do you realize what would have happened if WF, BoA, Chase, etc had been allowed to fail? Most have no idea the impact it would have had on our economic system had our major banks (and auto insutry) been simultaneously flushed away. There is no historical precedence for how bad it would have been.

 

I agree it would have bad, however the bailout money should have been spent better.

No money should of been giving until new leadership was put into place for theses banks.

The money should of had stricter guidelines on how it could be used.

How much of that money was wasted? I don't know, but I bet if we all new, we would not

be happy.

[Ursa Majoris]

And we can attribute that to TARP? Or, is it a natural cycle that would have occured? These are the things we can't accurately measure...

No, no, no. You should use "natural cycle" in the anti-climate change rants. In the anti-Government rants, you need to use words like "taxes" and "not the banks fault". Come on, they'll be pulling your righty credentials if you're not careful.

[SEC=UGA]

The pendulum has swung the other way as it always does. FWIW, I was able to get $40k worth of interest-free credit for a kitchen project with a short phone call three weeks ago.

 

Through the company that did the remodel, not from a bank, I'm guessing.

[Ursa Majoris]

Through the company that did the remodel, not from a bank, I'm guessing.

Home Depot.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Tell them you have 20%[/b] equity

 

Why would they lend to you if you only have 20% equity? It was the 80/20 ratio (and in some cases 90/10) that led to this real estate mess when values fell to levels that wiped out everyone's equity, or worse, dug into the debt.

 

You wanna borrow? Come to the table with 35-50%....that will take care of all the in/out specualtors with no equity & dramatically reduce future foreclosures.

 

While the pace of transactions will slow while investors build mroe equity, the future number of transactions in default will be miniscule. I'll take that every day of the week.

 

ETA: and FWIW....if you have a 26% IRR deal that you are pissed isn't going to get done, it would be more than easy to raise additional equity at those return levels....you could even pay that equity a 12% pref, and still get 20% on your own money.

Edited December 11, 2009 by i_am_the_swammi

[SEC=UGA]

Why would they lend to you if you only have 20% equity? It was the 80/20 ratio (and in some cases 90/10) that led to this real estate mess when values fell to levels that wiped out everyone's equity, or worse, dug into the debt.

 

You wanna borrow? Come to the table with 35-50%....that will take care of all the in/out specualtors with no equity & dramatically reduce future foreclosures.

 

While the pace of transactions will slow while investors build mroe equity, the future number of transactions in default will be miniscule. I'll take that every day of the week.

 

ETA: and FWIW....if you have a 26% IRR deal that you are pissed isn't going to get done, it would be more than easy to raise additional equity at those return levels....you could even pay that equity a 12% pref, and still get 20% on your own money.

 

There is no developer out there currently that is going to put that kind of equity up, well, very few, the returns just aren't there. ANd that additional equity will tank your IRR. For example, on a proforma I was working on, just took my equity from 30 to 40%, 5 yr IRR went from 23 to 13 (actually it doesn't decrease that much, something screwed up in the translation from sheet to sheet that I'm trying to hunt right now... but it does decrease substantially).

 

And I really don't believe it was the equity that was the issue. The issue was the cap rate cliamte and the low DCR that banks were taking on projects. I've had a number of deals where banks were lending to people on 4.5 caps on proforma numbers w. DCR in the .85 to .9 range on actuals. Also, bad loans were made due to a perceived "up side" or "value add" strategy.

Edited December 11, 2009 by SEC=UGA

[bpwallace49]

I LOVE how seeing these threads complete devolve into hugh tangents . .

 

Title of thread versus the commercial real estate available credit market . . . . .awesome.

[SEC=UGA]

I LOVE how seeing these threads complete devolve into hugh tangents . .

 

Title of thread versus the commercial real estate available credit market . . . . .awesome.

 

Yeah, it bottles the mind.

[darin3]

 

hmm...

Hey ultra-conservative dingleberries, are you going to address this or not?

 

Here, let me cut n' paste (no, I can't use crayons for you) the pertinent data:

 

 

Order  ↓ 	President  ↓ 	Highest Approval  ↓ 	Lowest Approval  ↓ 	Approval Difference  ↓ 	Highest Disapproval  ↓ 	Average Approval [10]  ↓44[5] 	Obama 	69 (1/22/09) 	47 (12/6/09) 	22 	46 (12/6/09) 	58.0[1][12]43[13] 	Bush (G.W.) 	90 (9/21/01) 	25 (10/3/08, 10/10/08, 10/31/08) 	65 	71 (10/10/08) 	49.442[14] 	Clinton 	73 (12/19/98) 	37 (5/26/93) 	36 	54 (9/6/94) 	55.141[15] 	Bush (G.H.W.) 	89 (2/28/91) 	29 (7/31/92) 	60 	60 (7/31/92) 	60.940[16] 	Reagan 	68 (5/16/86) 	45 (1/28/83) 	45 	56 (1/28/83) 	52.839[17] 	Carter 	75 (3/18/77) 	28 (6/29/79) 	47 	59 (6/29/79) 	45.538[18] 	Ford 	71 (8/16/74) 	37 (3/28/75) 	34 	46 (4/18/75, 11/21/75) 	47.237[19] 	Nixon 	67 (1/26/73) 	24 (8/2/74) 	43 	66 (8/2/74) 	49.136[20] 	Johnson 	79 (2/28/64) 	35 (8/7/68) 	44 	52 (8/7/68, 3/10/68) 	55.135[21] 	Kennedy 	83 (3/8/62) 	56 (9/12/63) 	27 	30 (9/12/63, 11/8/63) 	70.134[22] 	Eisenhower 	79 (12/14/56) 	48 (3/27/58) 	31 	36 (3/27/58) 	65.033[23] 	Truman 	87 (6/1/45) 	22 (2/9/52) 	65 	67 (1/6/52) 	45.432[24] 	Roosevelt (F.D.) 	84 (1/8/42) 	48 (8/18/39) 	36 	46 (5/22/38, 5/29/38, 11/7/38)

 

 

The table code isn't translating to our boards, so I'll just point out, according to this data, G.W. Bush's lowest approval rating was 25% (THREE TIMES!). And there are several other examples of approval ratings far below Obama's at this point.

 

Look, I'm no Democrat, didn't vote for Obama, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let you ditto-heads pimp false data.

[The Mucca]

Hey ultra-conservative dingleberries, are you going to address this or not?

 

Here, let me cut n' paste (no, I can't use crayons for you) the pertinent data:

 

 

Order  ↓ 	President  ↓ 	Highest Approval  ↓ 	Lowest Approval  ↓ 	Approval Difference  ↓ 	Highest Disapproval  ↓ 	Average Approval [10]  ↓44[5] 	Obama 	69 (1/22/09) 	47 (12/6/09) 	22 	46 (12/6/09) 	58.0[1][12]43[13] 	Bush (G.W.) 	90 (9/21/01) 	25 (10/3/08, 10/10/08, 10/31/08) 	65 	71 (10/10/08) 	49.442[14] 	Clinton 	73 (12/19/98) 	37 (5/26/93) 	36 	54 (9/6/94) 	55.141[15] 	Bush (G.H.W.) 	89 (2/28/91) 	29 (7/31/92) 	60 	60 (7/31/92) 	60.940[16] 	Reagan 	68 (5/16/86) 	45 (1/28/83) 	45 	56 (1/28/83) 	52.839[17] 	Carter 	75 (3/18/77) 	28 (6/29/79) 	47 	59 (6/29/79) 	45.538[18] 	Ford 	71 (8/16/74) 	37 (3/28/75) 	34 	46 (4/18/75, 11/21/75) 	47.237[19] 	Nixon 	67 (1/26/73) 	24 (8/2/74) 	43 	66 (8/2/74) 	49.136[20] 	Johnson 	79 (2/28/64) 	35 (8/7/68) 	44 	52 (8/7/68, 3/10/68) 	55.135[21] 	Kennedy 	83 (3/8/62) 	56 (9/12/63) 	27 	30 (9/12/63, 11/8/63) 	70.134[22] 	Eisenhower 	79 (12/14/56) 	48 (3/27/58) 	31 	36 (3/27/58) 	65.033[23] 	Truman 	87 (6/1/45) 	22 (2/9/52) 	65 	67 (1/6/52) 	45.432[24] 	Roosevelt (F.D.) 	84 (1/8/42) 	48 (8/18/39) 	36 	46 (5/22/38, 5/29/38, 11/7/38)

 

 

The table code isn't translating to our boards, so I'll just point out, according to this data, G.W. Bush's lowest approval rating was 25% (THREE TIMES!). And there are several other examples of approval ratings far below Obama's at this point.

 

Look, I'm no Democrat, didn't vote for Obama, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let you ditto-heads pimp false data.

 

 

I believe they were talking about Bushs' approval rating after his first year in office, not when he left.