It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Reserve Buys More Than 100% of Mortgages Issued in 2009

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Federal Reserve Buys More Than 100% of Mortgages Issued in 2009


www.chrismartenson.com

So far in 2009 (through August), a total of 3.2 million existing homes were sold for an average price of $217,000, while 263,000 new homes were sold for an average price of $264,000.

Taken together, and assuming that we live in a world where 10% is the average down payment, we get this table:

[Table at link]

That is, a total of ~$686 billion in new mortgages were issued in 2009 (through August).
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Well, why should this surprise anyone? As we all know the Fed is busy monetizing debt by not-so-quietly using shell entitites to buy US bonds the rest of the planet has had more than enough of. The truth of the matter is that money is spattering from their hose in a manner they can no longer control.

www.chrismartenson.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
By definition you cannot buy more than 100% of anything. Because by definition 100% is the absolute amount that you can have.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 





By definition you cannot buy more than 100% of anything. Because by definition 100% is the absolute amount that you can have.


Unless you are talking banking and fractional reserve. then 9700% is the absolute amount that you can have. Isn't it nice to own the printing press.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I wonder when this "little" bubble will pop? Read the comments for the article, they bring up alot of questions...some that were new even.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

I was going to make that exact same post. I like your style, sir.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
At least people can take comfort that it is the Federal Reserve buying the mortgages and not some foreign entity or big corporation...

Oh, The isn't Fed is part of the federal government?

But it issues the nations money so it must be controlled by congress?.

It's not you say?

hmph.

But at least they aren't monetizing the debt like Alvarez stated during the hearing on 1207...

This is monetizing the debt?

Yes, but at least... I give up...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


reply to post by An0nym0use
 



If you read the source article it states:



In other words, the Federal Reserve alone bought $722 billion of mortgages and agency debt when only $686 billion in new mortgages were issued. So, through August, the Fed bought more than 100% of the entire supply of new (purchase) mortgages in 2009.


In other words, "the Fed bought [$36 billion] more [in debt], than 100% of the entire supply of new...mortgages in 2009".

That is how the title is possible.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by loam]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I declare this article to be bunk! Our dear leaders have informed us that the recession is over! We are too busy rejoicing and spending money that they say we now have to be bothered with details such as this.

Everybody knows that you can't build wealth on assets that don't really exist -- I mean, that was one of the reasons that Bush and the rest of the Republicans caused this terrible financial crisis. And since Obama used this very issue as a major campaign platform and assured us that reckless spending and wealth built on air would not happen on his watch -- this just can't be true. He promised: No more inflated values on homes!
Didn't I just lose more than 25% of the value on my house for this very reason -- to get back to its "real" value???

I mean, how are we supposed to be continually blaming the Republicans for everything if the same shady business practices are being continued and encouraged?

Nevermind my entire post - I forgot that he only INHERITED this mess.....



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
By definition you cannot buy more than 100% of anything. Because by definition 100% is the absolute amount that you can have.


Obviously you don't understand what was stated here. If the article had said that the Federal Reserve went in and bought the exact mortgages that are new this year, then yes you would be correct.

However, what this was talking about, is that the Federal Reserve through it mortgage purchasing program, has provided more than 100% of the liquidity and money that was needed to make those mortgages. In other words, the Federal Reserve, once you play out the string, has been the entire market for mortgages since most mortgage lenders don't hold the mortgages they make. In other words, the system is still broken.......



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I wonder if this was planned way back when they made the decision to create the housing bubble. Or is it just 'on the fly' action by the fed.

I'm curious to know what is really going on. Every action by the fed and by the government regarding monetary policy is a scam. The fed admits this by saying disclosure would compromise the integrity of the monetary system.

If we had a free trade market with currencies backed by commodities our system would do good during years of surplus production and suffer during years of decreased supply. Not such a bad system when you think about it. At least it would be based on something that isn't artificial.


The entire stock market and system of currency is a scam. So there will always be a few people who truly know what's going on laughing about it to themselves.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Come to think of it. The argument by the fed "if we tell you what we are doing the system will collapse" seems quite similar to a criminal saying "if I told you what I did then you'd arrest me"

no?

Bernie Madoff should have used that line.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
So who got the extra money then, and why? They spent a surplus somewhere, who did it go to?
Why is this not a bigger story?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The fed is monetizing debt and buying up toxic loans on the banks' books.

And yes, they have admited as much, but not in such direct terms.

The reason we don't have a free market system backed by something tangible, instead of a triple-tiered accounting scheme, is because it would REQUIRE the Fed to foster an economy that actually thrived on the backbone of American workers.


If they create a system such as we see today, they can continue to pay you and I less and less by stripping our production power and buying on the cheap in China. This is also why you only see a feined outrage at illegal immigration.
The truth is, they WANT Mexicans to come into this country and work for pennies undercutting the people who do things the right way.

Why? In the end the over. is less. That is the bottom line.

What it amounts to is that a gold standard raises the standard of living for everyone who is in work. That isn't acceptable for a group of people who think their 20million nest-egg should balloon overnight, through insider trading scams, to 20BILLION.

Screw the rest.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBaskettIV
 


The extra money went to banks that are still reeling.
Remember, the TARP money is being hoarded by the banks.

And why wouldn't the banks hoard it. They know they have created a mess. It must be fixed. Even if that means that the Fed itself has to print money up to pay it off.
And that is what they are doing.

We could have fixed all of this by spending MUCH, MUCH less and giving it to the people in trouble directly.

Yet they are going to double and triple and quadruple dip until we put a stop to it.

They are keeping this trouble intact so they can keep sucking money out of our pockets.
At this point, it is through a direct backdoor tax disguised as inflationary pressures.

They have seen just how easy it is to steal and they are going to keep stealing.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Well I dont know if this is a bad business move by the fed.

I mean house prices are truly depressed right now, in five years time they should be at least 10% higher (at least) than what they are now, so if they have the money they should mortgage the properties and collect the monthly rates and interest, while knowing that if some do default at least the value of the property will make up for it.

This is unlike the situation from the past 8 years that housing prices where inflated and a bad investment, now they are deflated and a decent investment.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Desolate Cancer
 


It may not be a bad business move as far as X's and O's are concerned, but it is certainly bad practice for the American public to allow such a crooked system to continue unchecked.
In the end it is the taxpayer footing the bill for all of this.

All of which could have been avoided.

In fact, you are exactly correct.
This is a PERFECT business opportunity for the FED, but it is one they created on MY sweat.

That is the problem.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I agree with you 100%, the federal reserve truly is the source of all the financial problems.

America is NOT a free market system, as much as we like to think it is, it is a manipulated system built off of its citizens hard work and determination for a better life. If we had a true free market system ie: no freddie mac, fannie mae, fed reserve, I am willing to bet my life that we would not have had most of this past centuries financial crises. From the savings and loan to this most recent one, and the coming big one in a few years time.

But none the less this scheme of buying up mortgages on depressed property values I think is based on solid business decisions that will prove profitable.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Desolate Cancer
 


Yes, profitable to the folks who are left with a home.

The point is that while it may be profitable to a few, it is unacceptable in application to the many.

We shouldn't defend their actions at all. Even to say it is "sound business."

Of course it is sound business! They orchestrated the damned thing!



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join