Schiff explains Yellen downplayed the housing bubble, and Schiff goes over the exact speeches everyone else is using to portray she as forecasting the bubble.
(my paraphrasing as I listen)
“she just says there ‘s concerns out there”
“she is posting a question...not stating something”
“higher then normal prices does not prove there is a bubble”
“to validate the reason why there isn’t a bubble”
“she says flat out she’s not making any predictions”
“housing prices is something to consider”
Thanks for posting.
Pretty much confirmed what I thought about her. I’ll spread it around to my ‘posse’
continued on the paraphrasing:
“all she really did is downplay the risk”
“does this sound like someone trying to warn”
“she’s very optimistic”
“she is forecasting the possibility”
“she saying maybe home prices won’t go up so fast”
“the wealth effect on spending”
“house prices could surprise us in either direction”
“if it slows much faster or reverses”
“house prices may go up faster
“how could she be warning about a bubble if she thought the prices were going up”
sept 2006
“the speed of the falloff and decline of house prices have surprised us”
“housing is a relatively small sector of the economy”
2010
“did not see any of that coming until it happened”
Continue
“Media still going with the story Yellen as forecasting the bubble and going with it as if it were the truth.”
“Keynesian and inflationist, repeat the mistake until...”
“the only one happy is going to be Ben Bernacke, because he won’t go down as the worst”
A little background;
Housing Speculation is More Rampant Than You Think
by Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital. July 5, 2005
http://www.financialsensearchive.com/fsu/editorials/schiff/2005/0705.html
However, the mere fact that owners occupy their houses as principle residences does not necessarily remove such properties from the category of speculative investments. For example, 58% of recent California homebuyers financed their purchases using ARMs (with percentages in pricier counties exceeding 80%). The primary reason given to justify such mortgages was owners’ intentions to resell the properties in relatively short periods of time. Such buying is clearly speculative, regardless of the speculator’s intention to occupy the property. Given high transaction costs and low relative rents available in markets where such mortgages are most pervasive, absent the expectation of rapid price appreciation, such short-term buyers would clearly be better off renting.
Also, the fact that so many buyers are using interest-only, or negative-amortization mortgages, suggests even greater degrees of speculation. Since none of the monthly payments on such loans reduce the principal of the mortgages, buyers utilizing them are no better off than renters. However, since they must also pay property taxes and maintenance, interest only buyers actually get the worst of both worlds. They rent property from lenders, yet get stuck with all the headaches associated with ownership. The only way interest-only buyers build equity is though price appreciation. In other words, they are the ultimate speculators.
Thank you, leave it to Free Republic to beat the press, again.
Can you give us some idea why this is relevant?
The other day as I watched the Sebilius testimony I was thinking, 'I'd love to see Peter Schiff have a go at Sebilius'. I would pay to watch him make her eye twitch.