January 2009 Real Estate stats...

[Cosmo]

Most people do not appreciate the precipice upon which the world economy is dangling.

In the US, I am sure that Congress will pass a stimulus plan, but I worry that the plan may be delayed and/or downsized. And President Obama is right: we really do need swift, bold action.

But it's politics and I fear the legislation the US Congress passes will actually be too cautious.

As a result, the economy plunges for most of 2009, and when the plan finally starts to kick in, it’s only enough to slow the descent, not stop it. Meanwhile, deflation is setting in, while businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy — well, you can see where this is going.

All of this on a day when we learned the following:

- That the auto industry suffered a miserable January. Ford US sales plunge 40 pct., Toyota down 32 pct. and GM's Sales were so bad the odds bankruptcy have become almost a sure thing.

- That California, one of BC's largest trading partners, started issuing IOU (I-owe-you) vouchers instead of cheques as an ongoing budget battle and a $42-billion deficit left the state without enough cash to meet its commitments. State comptroller John Ching has warned that the state could completely run out of cash by the end of this month if a solution is not found. On Friday, tens of thousands of state workers will begin taking two days a month of forced leave without pay and a representative for the state's Department of Finance said checks were not being issued for Cal Grant college scholarships, county social services and the California Highway Patrol.

- That the amount of vacant office sublease space in Vancouver has soared as businesses downsized and restructured due to the economic downturn.

- That Canadian Credit Card delinquencies are on a dramatic rise.

- That the HSBC Celebration of Light has been cancelled this year because of the economic downturn... a move which will hurt downtown business severly this summer.

- That Hudson’s Bay was announcing 1,000 job cuts – the first of many waves of layoffs likely to hit that company. Our iconic store is shedding five per cent of its workforce, joining a long line of retailers who may be on their knees later in 2009.

- That TD’s economists could not be more grim than they were this day. The bank’s Derek Burleton, a moderate, believes we should expect at least 300,000 more jobs to be trashed this year. That number equates to about 3 million in the United States, surpassing the 2.6 catastrophic jump in the unemployed there in 2008.

Jobless people don’t buy cars or houses.

So we are quickly coming up to the moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent the Second Great Depression?

Don't scoff.

Remember... people once completely rejected the idea that there could be a Second World War after the Great War to end all wars.

Maybe I will see the day when I can buy a candy bar for 10 cents again?

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Or the other possibility

is that we're in a recession and eventually we'll get out of it as we've always managed to do. Although there are many variables that are unknown in this new type of recession that seems to quickly act around the world as we become more and more interconnected on a global basis, there is the possibility that we ride it out as we've done in the past.

House prices for the most part do have an implied value, which is when the cap rate is in the 6-8% if that were to happen I would assume many people setting on the sides with cash, would move into the market on the basis of the cash flow they can get, as opposed to the hope for a quick increase in value. And for the most part, in all honesty, this is the approach real estate investors should have taken to begin with.

 

[felix29]

is that we're in a recession and eventually we'll get out of it as we've always managed to do. Although there are many variables that are unknown in this new type of recession that seems to quickly act around the world as we become more and more interconnected on a global basis, there is the possibility that we ride it out as we've done in the past.

House prices for the most part do have an implied value, which is when the cap rate is in the 6-8% if that were to happen I would assume many people setting on the sides with cash, would move into the market on the basis of the cash flow they can get, as opposed to the hope for a quick increase in value. And for the most part, in all honesty, this is the approach real estate investors should have taken to begin with.

Except the current economic conditions are not typical of most recessions. Most recessions dont have trillions of dollars of bad debt that need to be worked through.


A good comparision is what Japan has gone through over the last 15-20 years.

A possibility of what we may face is what happened to Argentina in the late 90's

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Except the current economic conditions are not typical of most recessions. Most recessions dont have trillions of dollars of bad debt that need to be worked through.


A good comparision is what Japan has gone through over the last 15-20 years.

A possibility of what we may face is what happened to Argentina in the late 90's

Well they've got a lot of lessons to learn from. Japan in particular, it's pretty much well known that they didn't deal with the bad debts on the banks books and otherwise didn't make any hard decisions until 3-4 years into their recession. It's the lessons they (THINK) they learned from these incidences that is driving the current stimulus package. Truth is no one knows how this is going to work. But based on past experience, particulary the New Deal, after the depression in the 30's that has led to the theory of throwing money at the problem and stimulating the economy.

As to the bad debt issue, that certainly complicates things, but for the most part the credit market is functioning much better than it was in September. But beyond a doubt the biggest mistake made to date, besides the lack of regulations in the financial sector, is allowing Leman Brothers to collapse. In fairness to the Treasury they didn't have much time to act, and philosophically they were opposed to supporting private companies and thus decided to all them to fail, but unfortunately they didn't fully understand the ramifications of this decision under it was too late. And by one estimate, if Fannie May and Fannie Mac's liabilities are considered, they will have pumped or potentially be on the hook for upwards of $ 7 trillion which is about 1/2 of their annual GDP, however, most of that is securred by you guessed it, mortgages that both the Fannies have underwritten, most of which were written years before this crisis arose and aren't causing any problem. Exclude that, and it's still about a 2 trillion dollar problem and growing. But if the banks recover and pay back the loans, which is still the most likely outcome, much of these loans disappear.

So yes they're throwing money at it, and yes it's complicated, but it doesn't necessarly have to be the catastrophe many think it will be. It could end up being so, but it doesn't necessarly have to have a catastrophic ending. And utimately it's been decided that throwing money at the problem may shorten the recession and thus end up being less costly than simply letting it run its course.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

This is yet another scary US problem

This is a recent article on the Economist. Pretty scary stuff.


Now better-heeled Americans are defaulting on mortgages

THE days when subprime mortgages were what kept bankers awake at night are long gone—though thanks only to the barrage of explosions in other corners of finance. In terms of toxicity, however, subprime has had no equal. Until now, perhaps. Even as credit markets, particularly corporate-debt markets, show some signs of improvement, mortgage loans to supposedly better-heeled Americans are souring at a gut-wrenching rate.

Of particular concern are “Alt-A” mortgages, offered to borrowers sandwiched between subprime and prime. This market was trumpeted as a means of extending home ownership to those, such as the self-employed, with a reasonable credit standing but unsteady income. Its practitioners specialised in loans with scant documentation and exotica such as negative-amortisation mortgages, which allow borrowers to pay less than the accrued interest, with the difference added to the loan balance.

That Alt-A has troubles comes as no surprise. Last summer, for instance, it helped to bring down IndyMac, a Californian bank. But the speed with which loans have soured in recent months, and the reaction of rating agencies, have been startling. Delinquencies rocketed in the final months of 2008. They even rose sharply for loans made in 2005, before underwriting turned really sloppy (see chart).

The rating agencies are rushing to catch up with this grim reality. Moody’s, which last summer had issued a sanguine outlook for Alt-A, recently quadrupled its loss projections on bonds backed by such loans. A steady flow of downgrades has turned into a flood in recent weeks, with thousands of Alt-A tranches taking the plunge. The falls have been unusually steep: of the $59 billion of AAA-rated securities that Moody’s cut between January 29th and February 2nd, an astonishing 91% went straight to junk, according to Laurie Goodman of Amherst Securities. In ratings terms, Alt-A is doing worse than subprime.

Moody’s calls this “unprecedented”. That is putting it mildly. It now expects losses for 2006-07 Alt-A securitisations to top 20%, compared with an historical average of well under 1%. In an ugly echo of the fiasco over collateralised-debt obligations, holders lower down the structure can expect total write-offs, while the vast majority of senior holders will not be spared substantial losses.

The sums involved are depressingly large. In the worst case, losses on the $600 billion of securitised Alt-A debt outstanding—roughly the same as the stock of subprime securities—could reach $150 billion, reckons David Watts of CreditSights, a research firm. Analysts at Goldman Sachs put possible write-downs on the $1.3 trillion of total Alt-A debt—including both securitised and unsecuritised loans—at $600 billion, almost as much as expected subprime losses. Add in option ARMs, a particularly virulent type of adjustable-rate loan, many of which are essentially the same as Alt-A, and the potential hit climbs towards $1 trillion.

Part of the problem is that much of the Alt-A lending came at the tail-end of the credit boom in late 2006 and early 2007. By then, subprime was already getting a bad name. So Wall Street hit on a ruse: it took borrowers who in normal times would have been subprime and dressed them up as “mid-prime”. Many of these loans were doomed from the start. According to the Bank for International Settlements, a staggering 40% of American mortgages originated in the first quarter of 2007 were interest-only or negative-amortisation loans.

In theory, interest-rate declines over the past year should offset the “payment shock” felt by borrowers whose loans reset from low teaser rates to higher ones. But house prices have fallen so steeply that perhaps half of all Alt-A borrowers are in negative equity; for many, walking away may seem the best option. Moreover, option-ARM borrowers who had not expected to start repaying principal until 2015 or later may now have to do so as early as this year, because they are hitting triggers that recast the loan early. Government efforts to stem foreclosures should help these unfortunates, though they may do little for owners of mortgage-backed bonds, who could face higher losses as a result of “cramdowns”, in which bankruptcy courts order a reduction in the principal owed.

Alt-Aaaaaargh
The pain will be felt across the financial industry. Insurance firms, which gobbled up large but unknown quantities of highly rated Alt-A paper, will now be forced sellers since they are not permitted to hold securities rated below investment grade.

Banks have already sold a sizeable chunk of their Alt-A holdings to hedge funds and other asset-management firms, often at large discounts. UBS’s exposure has fallen from $26.6 billion to just $2.3 billion, for instance. But other European banks were not so zealous. ING, a Dutch bank, still has €27.7 billion ($35.1 billion) of Alt-A debt. American banks are sitting on perhaps $800 billion of the stuff.

As the market prices of mortgage securities have fallen, banks have had to mark down their holdings, taking “unrealised” losses that erode their capital position. Multi-notch downgrades could put further downward pressure on prices. They hit capital in another way, too, because junk-rated debt carries a punitive risk weighting; banks must set aside five times as much capital as they have to for top-notch securities. Rating cuts also affect income statements, by pushing banks to acknowledge that losses which they had classified as temporary are now permanent.

The weakest may now need to raise fresh equity. If they are lucky, banks will be able to palm some of the risk on to governments via asset guarantees or “bad banks” that assume their noxious assets. The Dutch government has agreed to bear the risk on much of ING’s Alt-A holdings, and Citigroup’s $11.4 billion exposure to Alt-A bonds falls under a guarantee that formed part of its November bail-out. It will receive further help from the industry-wide bank-rescue package that the Obama administration is preparing.

What the taxpayer will get in return is far from clear. Officials are still wrestling with how to value beaten-up mortgages. Assessing the worth of Alt-A loans can be especially tricky because they are maddeningly heterogeneous, thanks to a broad assortment of payment options. Less rigorous banks carry some holdings at around 60 cents on the dollar. Morgan Stanley’s are marked at half that. Its shares have rebounded recently, partly on hopes that it will be able to write up these securities once the government unveils its bail-out.

The biggest single Alt-A casualties are America’s bungling mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They waded into the market in 2006-07, snaffling up business in red-hot states such as California and Arizona, comforted by down-payments of 20%. When house prices there fell by more than that, they were left holding the first loss, since borrowers who put in that much equity do not have to take out mortgage insurance.

Rotten as Alt-A loans are, worse may be to come. As unemployment in America heads towards 8%, even strongly underwritten loans will go bad. Bankers are growing increasingly anxious about the $1.1 trillion of prime mortgage loans and securities, much of which they held on to themselves, assuming it to be bombproof. This sits on their books at “much more optimistic” values than lower-grade mortgages, says one. Some 70% of prime securities will eventually have their ratings cut, according to a “downgrade-o-meter” produced by JPMorgan Chase. As Guy Cecala of Inside Mortgage Finance, a newsletter, puts it: “The mortgage storm’s first wave was subprime. Now we are being buffeted by Alt-A. But a bigger wave is on the horizon, and it cuts across all loan types.”

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

have historically been linked to income. The formula is that a house should cost no more than 3 X median income and 4 X is getting too high. That means the median price of a house in Vancouver should be $180,000 give or take.

So Vancouver prices are upwards of 8 X median income--absolutely unsustainable. And median incomes are dropping now and soon will be precipitously. .

This is hard to say. Basically we've been at 5-6 times income, or higher, for well over 20 years now, so this formula hasn't held true in decades. So I would be curious to see the historicial range as it applies to Vancouver over say the last 50 years. And certainly where I live the house price/income multiple is probably more along the lines of 10 X or more.

 

[felix29]

This is hard to say. Basically we've been at 5-6 times income, or higher, for well over 20 years now, so this formula hasn't held true in decades. So I would be curious to see the historicial range as it applies to Vancouver over say the last 50 years. And certainly where I live the house price/income multiple is probably more along the lines of 10 X or more.

Vancouver is somewhat different as land is in short supply and it is one of the cities in Canada that people would like to move to for the climate.

People will pay a premium to live in Vancouver compared to living in Calgary.

Calgary has a nearly unlimited supply of land, so the average housing price in Calgary should revert to the historical norms with only the inner city having higher prices due to the desire of people wanting to live closer to work

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Vancouver is somewhat different as land is in short supply and it is one of the cities in Canada that people would like to move to for the climate.

People will pay a premium to live in Vancouver compared to living in Calgary.

Calgary has a nearly unlimited supply of land, so the average housing price in Calgary should revert to the historical norms with only the inner city having higher prices due to the desire of people wanting to live closer to work

Well that's my point. You can't just take generalities and export them to our market and then extrapolate, which is for the most part what's being done.

It doesn't work like that.

Now if someone adjusts these generalities for local conditions I'm all ears.

 

[felix29]

Well that's my point. You can't just take generalities and export them to our market and then extrapolate, which is for the most part what's being done.

It doesn't work like that.

Now if someone adjusts these generalities for local conditions I'm all ears.

I would look at the sustainability of people paying such high levels.

People in Vancouver it seems will do without a car to be able to live in Van, allowing them to pay a higher price for the house as they are not making car payments. The main concern would be retirement funding, can they fund their retirment while at the same time paying 50%+ of the incomes towards housing costs

Overall I think Van is likely to see 5x as the upper basline for housing prices while Calgary should see 3.5. Small rural towns likely 3 x times

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

I would look at the sustainability of people paying such high levels.

People in Vancouver it seems will do without a car to be able to live in Van, allowing them to pay a higher price for the house as they are not making car payments. The main concern would be retirement funding, can they fund their retirment while at the same time paying 50%+ of the incomes towards housing costs

Overall I think Van is likely to see 5x as the upper basline for housing prices while Calgary should see 3.5. Small rural towns likely 3 x times

Well if this came about the drop in prices would be in the order of 40-50%.
Seems extreme to me, but certainly many others have said the same thing, so time will tell. My issue, if you will, is the fundaments haven't be adhered to for well over 20 years, so I don't know if they are suddenly going to materialize. this type of loss, would essentially wipe out all the gains which have occurred over the last 5 years.

 

[Cosmo]

Well if this came about the drop in prices would be in the order of 40-50%... this type of loss, would essentially wipe out all the gains which have occurred over the last 5 years.

Garth Turner was in Vancouver yesterday predicting a minimum of a 46% drop in Vancouver's housing prices. He made quite the impressive argument, charts, graphs and all.

 

[felix29]

Well if this came about the drop in prices would be in the order of 40-50%.
Seems extreme to me, but certainly many others have said the same thing, so time will tell. By issue, if you will, is the fundaments haven't be adhered to for well over 20 years, so I don't know if they are suddenly going to materialize. this type of loss, would essentially wipe out all the gains which have occurred over the last 5 years.

The last 20 years have been part of a credit cycle, one that is now ending.


As for the gains, I would say that as a minimum expect housing prices to drop to around 2005 levels in Canada. Over what time frame I cant say,

In my opinion of course

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Garth Turner was in Vancouver yesterday predicting a minimum of a 46% drop in Vancouver's housing prices. He made quite the impressive argument, charts, graphs and all.

Garth Turner...1st of all has he ever been right about anything?

And secondly, let me guess, leveraged investments into the stock market is still a good idea?

I noticed his speaking engagement was sponsored by Dundee Wealth Management.

Is it just me or is it an inherent confliction of interest to provide advice on a range of investment alternatives if you're basically getting paid to promote one of those options?

 

[Cosmo]

And secondly, let me guess, leveraged investments into the stock market is still a good idea?

Turner didn't go there. The only real investment advice he gave was that the stock market will come back and there will be lots of opportunity. He also said Real Estate will come back, but not for a long time.

Here are his comments about the night.

=================================
(Comments of Garth Turner)

After my speech in Vancouver Thursday night a throng of people crowded around, most trying to convince me that my estimate of a further (at least) 30% dive in the local housing market was extreme.

I heard all the arguments. Again. Mountains and sea and no more land. Rich Chinese immigrants hoovering everything. The Olympics. It’s different here. Blah, blah, blah.

So I explained once more there is no alternative but decline, and those who fight it may well be swept away. Thirty per cent, I repeated, at a minimum by the time this is over.

Standing a few yards away talking to my wife was a willowy guy who then came to shake my hand and stuff a business card into my palm. “This gentleman is from Michigan,” my wife said. He looked at the hundreds of people filing out of the room and said, “Good job. But you’re far too optimistic. I will be in touch.”

In the car back to the hotel Dorothy said he’d identified himself as a real estate developer from a city not too far from Detroit, visiting Vancouver with his Canadian wife. Back home, he’d told her, the unemployment rate is running at 46%, and consumer spending has pretty much all dried up. Massive amounts of middle-class mortgages are coming up for resetting in 2009, and already his community has been eviscerated by foreclosures. Stores closed. Car dealerships shuttered. Hope gone. Crisis. All a few hours’ drive from Toronto.

Canadians, he said, have no idea of what lies in store. And no government now has the power to stop it.

Well, take a look at the jobless numbers on Friday morning. Another 129,000 jobs erased in Canada. So bad, so devastating, that the finance minister had to take a scrum in Ottawa and say in advance how “regrettable” they were. And this, shockingly, was twice as bad as in the US, where 590,000 jobs vanished - a country with ten times our population. At the same time – just days after the last federal budget – Jim Flaherty is already talking about a new package of emergency actions.

I’ve said here before that we have three crises. Financial. Real estate. Economic. The third is the most devastating, since massive job loss will guarantee a hurricane sweeps through stores, small business and the lives of millions of families in 2009. The severity of the situation can be seen in the extreme actions of governments - panic spending, interest rate sacrifice and rash bailouts. Our political masters know we’re at the tipping point, know what failure means, and know it can only be called “regrettable” rather than the prelude to depression this might be.

Of course, we will come out of it. And in every crisis there is opportunity. In my talks I try to stress that, while pounding reality into the minds of those who want none of it. We cannot lose hope, nor can we afford not to prepare. This year will be the worst in the memory of almost all Canadians.

In downtown Vancouver, in the warm rain, many people left wondering how they’d cope with their homes losing a third of their value. One man left wondering how they could be so naive.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Still not a huge fan of the source. He is after all getting paid by Dundee Weath, so there's an inherent problem with that as far as I'm concerned.

As to the 30% drop, it's certainly not impossible, but I would hardly compare almost anything with Detroit.

For starters let's look at the basics.

1. Detroit isn't an overly attractive city compared to Vancouver

2. They have jobs based on of all things car manufacturing - not good, so
unemployment is naturally higher.

3. The US has non recourse mortgages, we don't. (This allows investors to
simply walk away from an investment if they want)

4. The US had sub-prime and Alt-mortgages, we didn't (and this is the main
cause of most of the mortgage problems in the US)

5. Many areas of the US, particularly in the south experienced far greater
increases during the last 5 years than has occured here, and house
prices haven't dropped all that much in Detroit, because they never
experience all that much gain to begin with.

6. Interest rates are deductible in the US for a principal residence, not so
here.

7. We still have limited land space relative to most cities and the
demographics work well for in migration to BC over the next 10 years

8. Interest rates are at almost historic lows and a signficant % of the
population has been excluded from getting in the market, so there's
likely pent up demand, primarly from the younger generation.



So all I'm suggesting is when future real estate projections are made, how many of these factors are considered?

My guess is not all that many.

For example it's likely that GarthTurner has no idea that the younger generation being shut out of the local market, given that he lives in Ontario, and is focused on promoting stocks and has been here what? A day maybe two?

Is this who you want to depend on for local market advice?

At least Michael Campbell, for example, lives in the lower mainland.

How many people on this site making market predictions know who much the price of real estate rose in say hotbeds like Las vegas and Miami relative to here?

Obviously one might be able to infer that if they rose significantly more, they may in fact crash significantly harder..would that not be a reasonable conclussion?

 

[felix29]

Still not a huge fan of the source. He is after all getting paid by Dundee Weath, so there's an inherent problem with that as far as I'm concerned.

As to the 30% drop, it's certainly not impossible, but I would hardly compare almost anything with Detroit.

For starters let's look at the basics.

1. Detroit isn't an overly attractive city compared to Vancouver

2. They have jobs based on of all things car manufacturing - not good, so
unemployment is naturally higher.

3. The US has non recourse mortgages, we don't. (This allows investors to
simply walk away from an investment if they want)

4. The US had sub-prime and Alt-mortgages, we didn't (and this is the main
cause of most of the mortgage problems in the US)

5. Many areas of the US, particularly in the south experienced far greater
increases during the last 5 years than has occured here, and house
prices haven't dropped all that much in Detroit, because they never
experience all that much gain to begin with.

6. Interest rates are deductible in the US for a principal residence, not so
here.

7. We still have limited land space relative to most cities and the
demographics work well for in migration to BC over the next 10 years

8. Interest rates are at almost historic lows and a signficant % of the
population has been excluded from getting in the market, so there's
likely pent up demand, primarly from the younger generation.



So all I'm suggesting is when future real estate projections are made, how many of these factors are considered?

My guess is not all that many.

For example it's likely that GarthTurner has no idea that the younger generation being shut out of the local market, given that he lives in Ontario, and is focused on promoting stocks and has been here what? A day maybe two?

Is this who you want to depend on for local market advice?

At least Michael Campbell, for example, lives in the lower mainland.

How many people on this site making market predictions know who much the price of real estate rose in say hotbeds like Las vegas and Miami relative to here?

Obviously one might be able to infer that if they rose significantly more, they may in fact crash significantly harder..would that not be a reasonable conclussion?

If I recall correctly Miami and Las Vegas have seen 40% declines in housing prices, Vegas is now priced like it was in 2002

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

If I recall correctly Miami and Las Vegas have seen 40% declines in housing prices, Vegas is now priced like it was in 2002

Sounds about right, but our market is probably closer to Seattle's than Miami's in terms of market gains over the last 5 years. Both Miami and Las Vegas real estate went up way more than ours did during this period of time, so one would expect the fall to be harder.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

So the question is: Is Vancouver and the lower mainland so special as to be exempt from the laws of economics or like the "hot" markets in the US does it just mean we have so much farther to fall. I think it's the latter.

No, a better question is does it have to be one or the other, or can the market fall somewhere between these two extremes?

I think there will be a significant adjustment, but not an out right Miami- Las Vegas type crash, and I've listed the reasons why, but I don't profess to have any fortune telling skills so we'll see.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

I don't have any fortune telling skills either but just keep looking at the data. I don't think the bailout in the US will work for a number of reasons. One is giving money to the banks to "get credit moving again" can't work because the problem is too much debt, not a lack of it. Two, infrastructure projects are good to get people get back to work. But there is a need for a manufacturing and export base to get money flowing for the economy to work. And there the problem is the world-wide nature of the crisis. Bottom line is the data says the US economy is going to tank in a major way.

And how far behind will we be, months? a year at the most? We can not uncouple from the US economy so we're headed for depression too. In depression conditions even I may be being optimistic about housing prices. A 3 X median average is for normal economic times. A major deflationary depression wipes out the rules.

So, I agree with you to the extent that no one can really know. Except that we can know that it won't be good news. That is neither in the cards, nor the data.

Well none of us knows whether this idea is going to work or not, there is a broad consensus among Economist that this is the best course of action. And it's safe to say those that are advising the President and Congress know a little more about the workings of the econom, the banking system and the financial markets than we do.

Having said all that, their track record is nothing to brag about. But we do have a new set of problem solvers and a different philosophical bend at the top so we just have to hope.

If the economy were a dead man on an operating table, Obama's plan is essentially to get the cables out and blast him a few times to see if he lives.

 

[Sultan]

This is what did it for me:

=================================
(Comments of Garth Turner)

Back home,[Detroit] he’d told her, the unemployment rate is running at 46%,

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/lauMT26198203

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/metro.pdf

Pure bullshit. If Garth Turner actually believes this crazy figure, then he is truly a nutter.