NOTE: If you are subscribed to Seattle Bubble’s RSS feed and are seeing these open threads in the feed, please switch to our official feed at http://feeds.feedburner.com/SeattleBubble Thanks!
Here is your open thread for Monday June 25th, 2012. You may post random links and off-topic discussions here. Also, if you have an idea or a topic you’d like to see covered in an article, please make it known.
Be sure to also check out the forums, and get your word in the user-driven discussions there!
NOTICE: If you have comments to make about politics or economics that do not somehow directly relate to Seattle-area real estate, they may be posted in the Politics & Economics Open Thread. If you post such comments here, they will be moved there.
This could be a huge week. Possible Supreme Court decisions on Omamacare and immigration, and also Google I/O. Lots of excitement and disappointment. With the Supreme Court decisions disappointment is guaranteed. If it were Apple rather than Google, disappointment would be guaranteed all around!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 1 –
I Hear Obamacare is Going to Lose in the Supreme Court
That case did merit attorney attention.
The SB1070 was already laws in the books in any country throughout the world [simply checking foreign visitor papers] , makes me seriously wonder why we’re wasting this type of federal income tax deficit money on immigration attorneys? Don’t we have more important issues?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Individual mandate being struck down will be a huge positive for confidence. Obama going down in flames in November will be too. Without those two things I’d be worried.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By softwarengineer @ 2:
Any rumors you hear are just that. The Supreme Court, unlike the executive and legislative branches, has historically been very good at keeping secrets.
As to immigration, if you read the Supreme Court decision on the Arizona law (I linked it in the politics thread), it’s no wonder we have a problem in this country. The federal scheme is truly a mess.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Here’s an article on Google I/O and what’s expected. #9 is the most interesting to me, as would be some of the new tablets.
http://www.techweb.com/news/240002593/google-i-o-preview-9-potential-products.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
If you hold onto an investment for longer than five days, consider yourself the new millennium’s version of Benjamin Graham.
The average holding period for the S&P 500 SPDR (SPY), the ETF which tracks the benchmark for U.S. stocks, is less than five days, according to shocking statistics in analyst Alan Newman’s latest Crosscurrents newsletter.
“Given recent average volume, the SPY trades its entire capitalization and then some each and every week,” wrote the always-provocative analyst. “Does anyone really wish to argue where valuation might enter the picture in this scenario? Value does not matter in the slightest.”
Analysts blame the hot potato market on the disappearance of the individual investor and the entry of the high-frequency trader. After three bear markets in the last decade, individual investors – especially baby boomers careening toward retirement – don’t have the risk tolerance to be burned once again.
“True liquidity has not come back and the pros and high frequency traders rule the world,” said Brian Stutland of Stutland Volatility Group. “Plus, if the average person ever comes back, then they won’t have time to play all day long back and forth in the market. So, maybe buy and hold really is dead.”
Newman notes in his newsletter that the average holding period for all stocks was almost four years from 1926 through 1999. After a tech mania, a housing bubble, and the explosion in electronic trading, the average holding period sits at just 3.2 months today.
The decline in mutual funds and rise of short-term oriented hedge funds are also partly to blame for this trend, investors said.
“From the hedge fund perspective, we are judged on monthly performance, and three months is a lifetime,” said Brian Kelly of hedge fund Shelter Harbor Capital. “Ask any hedge fund or mutual fund manager for how long do they believe they can underperform the market and I guarantee they will tell you, ‘One quarter.’”
Dirty Renter, here – find yourself a great dividend yielder and let these morons drive it down to unbelieveable levels…and then buy it, hold it, and earn that awesome income. There’s opportunity w/ these monkeys in charge.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Local Goldman Sachs portfolio faces receivership suit
The servicer for a Goldman affiliate’s $900 million debt asked a judge to put a receiver in charge of 11 Seattle and Bellevue buildings.
Lenders who helped finance a Goldman Sachs affiliate’s purchase of 11 Seattle-area office buildings just before the crash have asked a judge to appoint a receiver to take over the big, troubled portfolio, saying their investment is at imminent risk.
The portfolio, 96 percent leased when Whitehall bought it, now is nearly 40 percent vacant, according to commercial real-estate database Officespace.com
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2018505131_goldman23.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Dirty Renter @ 6 – The holding period is probably shorter in large part due to lower brokerage fees. Trading for short term makes sense if you pay $7 a trade, but not if you pay over $500 a trade.
And Spiders are probably where a lot of people park money in between trades.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Judge likens Goldman logic to Orwell’s ‘1984’
A federal judge blasted Goldman Sachs for its “Orwellian” defense against a lawsuit accusing it of misleading investors in the sale of risky securities, comparing the firm’s logic to the George Orwell classic “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
“Words such as ‘honesty,’ ‘integrity,’ and ‘fair dealing’ apparently do not mean what they say,” Manhattan federal court Judge Paul Crotty said in a 27-page opinion allowing the shareholder suit to proceed against the bank.
The harsh words from Crotty relate to allegations that Goldman concealed conflicts of interest in several CDO transactions that were part of the subprime meltdown.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/goldman_kFGaYp7pSPZ1rRxAxf5ucP
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 4 –
I Respectfully Disagree With You Kary
Our immigration laws are not a mess. They’re clearly stated in our Constitution and simply not enforced.
We’ve recently made immigration Constitutional Laws on a blackboard, we just erase and add to ‘em with no rules. Then argue about it on the taxpayer dime.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By softwarengineer @ 10:
Not sure what you’re talking about. Off the top of my head all the Constitution says on the topic is it is one of the powers of Congress: “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, . . .;
It doesn’t mean that they have to. It doesn’t mean that they have to say anything in particular. It just needs to be uniform.
The next clause in the constitution says: “To establish . . .uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
Despite that, there were periods in our history where there were no bankruptcy laws.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By softwarengineer @ 10:
really? a record number of people are being deported this year.
the border is too big to be secured.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By corndogs @ 3:
30 million people not being able to get health insurance is confidence for whom? most people support obama and most people really like the individual parts of it.
The mandate will be upheld and Obama is going to be re-elected. enjoy!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 12 –
Spoken Like a Republican
What’s the border got to do with employers following current immigration laws on the books?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: softwarengineer @ 10 – I doubt I agree with you on immigration policy SWE, but you are correct here.
Either enforce the laws on the books, or just throw out the laws and open the borders. This selective enforcement is ridiculous and unjust.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: wreckingbull @ 15 –
It Has Nothing to Do With Our Politics Wrecking Bull
We live in a Republic and it has laws. Giving one group [American employers i.e.] a get out of jail free card and making most of us tow the line anyway, creates disrespect and distrust. I agree with you, either legally change the laws or enforce the existing ones [which we should be doing before the laws are changed anyway].
Constitutional Changes require 2/3s majority with Senate and Congress both BTW, so are almost impossible. Tough. If ya don’t like living with our rules, get out of America.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 1 – You forgot about the possible reopening of Citizens United via the Montana challenge… which the SCOTUS overturned with a 5-4 ruling, and refusing to open Citizens United for debate. So, looks like our elections will be ruled by billionaires and corporations, at least until a few justices kick the bucket. There’s no way Congress will fix the campaign financing since it benefits them to be able to rake in cash with no limits or disclosure.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 13:
With this court, I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire law is thrown out. And in the grand scheme, I’m not sure how much the mandate getting tossed out matters, especially since most people get their coverage through their employer anyway.
Put another way, which is worse – waiting until you’re kinda sick, signing up for insurance, then going to normal doctors vs waiting until you’re really sick and going to the ER?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By wreckingbull @ 15:
Read the decision. The laws seem to make it very tough to actually throw someone out!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By WestSideBilly @ 17:
I wasn’t expecting that decision today or even this week.
But you have that all backwards. Incumbent politicians hate the existing system. It allows a lot of money to be spent against them. They have a lot of reason to want to change it. That’s why you hear them brainwashing the American citizens complaining about the Citizen’s United decision.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
David Losh, this may make your head spin. It’s an article on Fast and Furious written by a gun magazine.
http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/06/25/the-rundown-on-fast-and-furious/#
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Is this guy dimmer than George W? Is that at all possible? He really needs a catch all statement for situations like these. Some pap about the free market economy,
prosperity via less regulation, or the sanctity of marriage would do. Hide the bourbon and pretzels.
Romney campaign on back foot over Arizona immigration law
Republican contender unable to give specific answer on whether he accepts supreme court ruling or sides with Arizona
Mitt Romney’s campaign managers were forced on the defensive on Monday after the Republican presidential candidate issued a vague and ambiguous response to the supreme court ruling on Arizona’s tough anti-immigrant laws.
Romney appears caught between a desire not to alienate conservatives who adopt a hardline approach to illegal immigration and a need to court Latino voters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/romney-campaign-arizona-immigration-law?newsfeed=true
Rate this comment:
0 
0
This is a portion of the factual statement from the Citizen’s United decision. I don’t know how anyone could read that and think that Citizen’s United was in any way wrongly decided.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Blurtman @ 22 – I’m not sure which that is supposed to be, but it reads more like an opinion piece than a news piece.
Those things are not in anyway inconsistent.
Also I would note that the decision itself doesn’t leave it all that clear just what Arizona can do in the future. It leaves that to future court actions. So I’m not sure how you develop a statement on what you think of the opinion beyond what he said–that he wishes it were different.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 20:
Incumbents have always had an advantage in fund raising, and they have the power to fix the system if they actually dislike it. At least short term, for Republicans / conservatives in particular, Citizens United has allowed them to offload the dirty work of campaigning to the SuperPACs. The problem is the only politicians who won’t like this system are the ones who have lost.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Blurtman @ 22 – Romney’s entire post-primary campaign has been about etch-a-sketching his primary positions and making vague statements about how he would be better than Obama.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By WestSideBilly @ 25:
They would have the power but for the First Amendment. That’s the entire point of the discussion.
Maybe you didn’t like the Hilary example. What if it was applied to the 2004 “documentary” Fahrenheit 911 about George W. Bush. What if Mirmax had been threatened with civil and criminal liability if that film was shown within 30 days of the election?
Or take the facts of the earlier decision where the Supreme Court got it wrong. Hundreds of thousands of people gave money to the NRA to run ads against politicians who were anti-gun. But according to the earlier decision, it was legal for the government to prevent such advertising within 30 days of an election.
If there’s any time that you need freedom of speech rights, it’s prior to an election. It shocked me that the Supreme Court got such a simple decision wrong over 4 years ago, and I was glad they finally came to their senses in the Citizen’s United case.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By WestSideBilly @ 26:
Non-incumbent presidential candidates from both parties change their position after the primaries. Nothing new there.
Stated differently, it’s no great shock that you can’t believe what a politician says.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Blurtman @ 22 –
Interesting, comparing W to Romney. W seemed to take pride in his not appearing smart, while Romney just has this habit of blurting incoherent crap out. Bush could appear as just a “aw shucks” common guy you’d want to have a beer with(at least until he got elected), where Romney can’t seem to shake the “out of touch preppie” persona.
Should be an interesting election. Obama has an interesting story but is himself pretty dull. Romney’s trying awfully hard to make it look like he’s someone people can relate to, but the best way to do that for him would be to keep his mouth shut. I’m waiting for him to order foie gras at a 7-11.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 29 – It is merely marketing. I hope Romney is up to speed on supermarket scanners. Both Romney and W. Bush have Harvard MBAs, although Romney is a Harvard JD/MBA. And Bush’s Texas drawl was quite contrived.
More Romney theater:
“Out-of-touch egghead intellectual Barack Obama probably “spent too much time at Harvard,” it was suggested today by Mitt Romney, a person who earned a joint JD/MBA degree at Harvard over the course of four years — one year longer than the three years Obama spent at Harvard getting his law degree, and two years longer than the time spent by three of Romney’s sons at Harvard Business School.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/romney-harvard-obama.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 29 – Most politicians “spout incoherent crap,” whether they believe it or not, because the average American believes incoherent crap. It’s popular. For example on oil and gas prices, more people believe that they are periodically being ripped off than understand microeconomics and business. So what is the average politician going to do? They sure as hell are not going to stand in front of a camera and give economics lessons, and even if they do, that material will never be shown. What will be shown is making completely unsupported assertions of possible collusion. Or they’ll claim that speculators can somehow magically affect the market long term. Those arguments appeal to the <99 IQ population.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Case Shiller is out for April. 133.84, which is up about 2.5 from March.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 29 – Even for those of you who voted for Obama, I highly recommend the new book “The Amateur”. Yes, Obama is a bit dull on the surface, but go a level deeper and you will find a very fascinating personality. Most telling are the interviews with those in his own camp.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 19 –
I Agree Kary
The SCOTUS decision basically took all Constitutional Law enforcement and took it from the States and gave it to federal ICE to administer only.
Currently under today’s spineless DHS, that’s akin to flushing our Constitutional immigration laws on the books down the toilet.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“One Year Achiever CD. Never Stop Achieving. 1.10% APY. Declare Your Independence.
“https://www.bankoncit.com/index.htm
With the sunglasses on,this meaningless drivel written by souless fiends translates to:
” One Year Loser CD. Never Stop Working. We Pay You 1%; You Pay US 1.6%. You Are A Slave.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: softwarengineer @ 34 – Hey, somebodies who have large families have to prop up Social Security and pick the fruit and veggies. Never should have stolen that land from the natives to begin with.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The New Jersey state Senate narrowly passed a bill Monday giving the state the ability to buy vacant, previously foreclosed homes and resell or rent them out.
The bill forms the New Jersey Foreclosure Relief Corp., a new state government body that would acquire, sell and rent the properties buy selling an uncapped amount of bonds. It will also issue an annual report about foreclosure activity in the state and produce financial statements of its own transactions.
If a city in New Jersey buys a foreclosed property and it sits vacant for at least 180 days, the N.J. Foreclosure Relief Corp. would take control of it.
http://www.housingwire.com/news/new-jersey-passes-bill-reuse-vacant-foreclosures
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Pegasus @ 37 – I could see there might be a need to take control of long vacant houses, but I don’t see the need for the rest. Do they think there’s no private sector to buy these things and rent them out?
Be interesting to see if it gets signed into law.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Pegasus @ 37 – Nice typo in the article “buy” vs “by”…
“The bill forms the New Jersey Foreclosure Relief Corp., a new state government body that would acquire, sell and rent the properties buy selling an uncapped amount of bonds.”
The elephant in the room left unmentioned in the article is
1. who does the city buy the property from
2. who sets the purchase price
Lines 35-36 on page 3 of the bill defines eligible property as a foreclosed property owned by an institutional lender (I can’t cut & paste the stupid PDF), so it sounds like yet another scam.
I’m just going to go out on a limb and guess the price the NJ govt would pay would be no less than what FNM/FRE expects to get on the open market…
Oh, it gets better. On page 6 lines 4-7 a Real Estate agent must be on the board.
IMO, after skimming the bill, this is just more fiddling.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The bottom is in, the bottom is in. Buy before being priced out forever!!!!! /snark.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2018532130_homeprices27.html
(Ahem….still down 1% year over year, even with the MOM increase).
Or perhaps its more dangerous out there……
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune12/housing-bottom6-12.html
Snip:
“The key point here is that the rental market’s current robustness [which is providing a significant level of support at the lower ends of the SFH market as investors snap up a stack of properties as rentals ] is at least partially dependent on unprecedented government stimulus/transfers. The current strength may be temporary rather than permanent.
The second take-away is that demand could weaken considerably in a “real recession” even as supply increases due to millions of investor-owned properties hitting the rental market and the “informal rental” market expanding as people with mostly empty houses seek additional income or accept relatives/friends with a need for shelter. ”
Is the local market Improving? Perhaps. then again……
Is the local market experiencing a dead cat bounce within a secular down trend? Well, that’s my gut feel. See the chart of real incomes in the of two minds post.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 13 –
If you want health care be a grown-up and go buy some, or else do the honorable thing which is curl up and die, and don’t be a drag on society.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 27 – My main issue with Citizens United was that it answered a simple question with a broad answer. The Court could have just said “it’s OK to show Hillary” (there was precedent for doing this), and nobody would have batted an eye, but Roberts went way above and beyond that and basically said that any and all forms of political spending are protected “speech”, issuing a ruling way beyond the scope of the case. Secondary is that the first amendment wasn’t really written to protect corporations/unions ability to spend money on elections, yet the majority ruled that corporations/unions’ right to speech was more important than fair elections, despite decades of evidence to the contrary and precedent.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: WestSideBilly @ 42 –
How is it that when 50, 500 or 5000 people band together in a Union, they lose their right to speak collectively, say by financing ads, pamphlets, publications or movies that support their collective agenda?
How is it that when 50, 500 or 5000 people band together in the ownership of a limited liability company (Gasp, a “CORPORATION”) they lose their right to speak collectively, say by financing ads, pamphlets, publications or movies that support their collective agenda?
How is it that 50, 500 or 5000 people band together in a common cause, lets say via a PAC, further lets say to stop Bothell’s power grab annexation, they lose their right to speak collectively, say by financing ads, pamphlets, publications or movies that support their collective agenda to actually keep the local fire station open and to have lower taxes?
Unions, PACS and Corporations aren’t people, they’re composed OF people. And when those people band together for the purpose of the Union, PAC or Corporation, they don’t lose their free speech rights to publish pamphlets, ads, broadcast on TV, radio or the internet, to produce and screen movies, films or videos. Most individuals don’t have the resources to buy a TV ad to get their message (speech) out to a large audience – 50, 500 or 5000 banding together in a common cause via one of the above means DO have the resources. That West Side Billy, is what the Supreme Court rules on in Citizens United.
And if you don’t like that, that some people have the nerve to band together to get their message out, then the solution is MORE speech, MORE debate, MORE ideas, MORE view points, not to suppress speech, debate, ideas and view points. Get off your back side their West Side Billy and sharpen your debate skills.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: WestSideBilly @ 42 – When you’re dealing with First Amendment issues you tend to deal with broader issues because you don’t want to allow speech to be hindered. You still have situations though where it’s possible to avoid any deciding any Constitutional issue, as occurred last with with the Fox v. FCC decision. But once you have to decide the Constitutional free speech issue, you have to go broader.
As to your elections comments, I would strongly disagree. The time free speech is most important is during elections. That someone doesn’t like the speech is irrelevant.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: No Name Guy @ 43 – With the power and concentration of the mainstream media today, having other voices available is even more important.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: No Name Guy @ 43 – If an individual breaks the law, in theory they are punished. Theoretically, the threat of capital punishment or years languishing in prison acts as a deterrent.
Can one argue that the prospect of death, or years in incarceration carries the same weight as the threat of dissolving a corporation? If not, then it appears corporations do not have the same pressure to comply with the law as individuals.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: ChrisM @ 46 – Are you trying to suggest that you’re shielded from criminal liability by acting as a corporation?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By corndogs @ 41:
obamacare is a lot more than just getting health insurance. it helps just about everyone who has insurance, including you.
I also present a former anti-obamacare advocate turned supporter.
‘Obamacare’ to the rescue
A woman who felt President Obama had let the middle class down has changed her mind.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/06/opinion/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By No Name Guy @ 43:
they don’t lose their rights. they have to obey the law but they don’t lose their rights.
a corporation is one of the most biggest welfare programs there is. it used to that every owner was liable for the company. now we have limited liability. huge state granted welfare program.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: No Name Guy @ 43 –
Good argument, and the only one that has made sense to me.
My objection is that corporations aren’t people. Corporations are a Board of Directors that answer to no one but the stock holders.
To me it’s a conflict of interest to pursue financial gain at the expense of our political system. It’s a continuation of government for profit rather than by, and for the people.
I look at corporations the same as a seperation between church, and state. Our government can’t give money to churches, churches can’t profit by government influence, corporations can, and do profit by our government.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: pfft @ 48 –
Obamacare is dead on Thursday morning. Anyone here a betting man (or woman)??
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 47 – Basically, yes. Especially if I’m just a shareholder, not an officer of the corporation. I’m proposing an argument that the threat of a year in prison deters me from committing some crime as an individual, but as an officer I’m not particularly threatened, especially if I have a contract w/ the corporation shielding me from personal harm (liability insurance, etc.).
How many times have we seen SEC (etc) “settlements” with corporations where the corp didn’t admit wrongdoing, just settled for some amount of money?
Wikipedia (not the greatest of sources, I know) says a corporation can be libelled.
Where do we draw the line between persons & corporations? If the first amendment applies to a corporation, does the second? Should a line be drawn at all?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By pfft @ 49:
Link please.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Tatiana Kalashnikov @ 51:
I hope you’re right, but never try to predict the Supreme Court.
If the individual mandate isn’t dead on Thursday, we need to amend the Constitution to kill it. Way too much power for the federal government to have.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
LOL. Someone finally discovered that Apple consumers buy things without doing much research and like to waste money!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577488822667325882.html
I wonder if these expensive hotels have broadband, or if the Apple users have to wait until next year? ;-)
Rate this comment:
0 
0