My afternoon train reads:

• The Handy-Dandy Investors Crash Loss Calculator (MarketWatch)
• Your House Is An Undiversified Bond Investment (The Basis Point)
• Companies in Trouble Call More on Bullish Analysts! (Real Time Economics)
• Regulators Find British Banks Must Raise $38 Billion (DealBook) but see Fed doves in no rush to scale back asset purchases (MarketWatch)
• Why I’m leaving China (CNNMoney)
• Blue Sky Thinking: Collecting Solar Energy in Space and Beaming it to Earth (Slate)
Rivkin: In Praise of Sheryl Sandberg (and all women) (ContraCarbon)
• After Yahoo Acquires Summly, Is Buying Math The Next Tech Bubble? (npr)
• Can the New Cadillac Catch Up to BMW? (WSJ)
• T-Mobile to Carry iPhone 5 for $99.99 Starting April 12 (FastCompany) see also T-Mobile Shakes Up Its Service, offers $99 iPhone 5  (NYT)

What are you reading?


Dash for cash

Source: The Economist

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

10 Responses to “10 Wednesday PM Reads”

  1. RW says:

    I appreciated the point of the article on a house as an undiversified bond investment even if it did conflate the individual with the aggregate and the financial asset with the underlying. Real estate is ineluctably local and any securitization of mortgages that does not appropriately diversify taking that into account and any portfolio of houses that does not incorporate skilled local managements on that account is probably doomed to disappoint its investors.

    OTOH a large mortgage is a liability and if one is concerned about the ability to refinance one worth hedging; e.g., back in the 70′s I bought a duplex that was seller financed and decided it might be prudent to protect myself with some zero-coupon bonds of comparable maturity; made sense …until I encountered phantom interest, something that significantly cooled my enthusiasm for the idea.

  2. willid3 says:

    banks being investigated again. for collusion . again
    seems like investigating the banks has become a full time job, maybe it would have been cheaper had we really regulated them to begin with.cheaper for them to actually follow the law too, but that would earn less money in the short term, and besides they can always write off the fines any way, and say they will never do that again. until they do of course

  3. Fred C Dobbs says:

    Boo Hoo! Who cares? It has been going on a long time, all parties using it, and no one does anything about it! Check out the Rome Republic, England, Massachusetts etc. Everybody did or does it. Does it cause worse or better laws to be passed? Does it cost anyone any money? Next.

  4. willid3 says:

    did the ‘investors’ in housing really act like economists expect? \

    or were they subject to group think ?

  5. willid3 says:

    are rich investors laundering their money in tax havens and then investing in their home countries?

  6. denim says:

    Here is what I hope to be reading soon (after April 7):

    “Probabilistic Graphical Models” a Sanford University web course by Professor Daphne Koller:

    Next Web Session:
    Apr 8th 2013 (11 weeks long)
    Workload: 15-20 hours/week

    Not for the sloth, me thinks, but afterwards Paul Krugman and Nate Silver may not be as mysterious.

  7. Low Budget Dave says:

    Buying a house is similar to “prepaid rent”, but only to the extent that you might sell the house. Taking out a loan is a separate transaction. Many people can (and do) take out mortgage loans and then spend the money on other things.

    If you have a fixed-rate loan, its primary financial value is a hedge against inflation, assuming that whatever you bought does not depreciate.

    The only reason banks focus on the value of the home is so they can down-play the ability to repay, which is a quick path to bankruptcy. (Or, these days, to another bailout.)