patrick.net

Reuters
Freddie Mac hit by huge loss, says needs capital
Tuesday November 20, 3:56 pm ET
By Patrick Rucker

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE - News), the No. 2 U.S. mortgage finance company, on Tuesday stunned Wall Street with a unexpectedly wide loss and plans to slash its dividend or use other means to raise capital to withstand a continuing downturn in the housing market.

Freddie Mac shares lost more than one-quarter of their value after reporting a net loss of $2 billion, blaming falling home prices and tighter credit conditions for having increased the number of borrowers defaulting on their mortgages. It was the worst one-day percentage drop ever and pummeled the stock to an 11-year low.

Freddie Mac shares lost more than one-quarter of their value after reporting a net loss of $2 billion, blaming falling home prices and tighter credit conditions for having increased the number of borrowers defaulting on their mortgages.

Falling home prices are to blame? What spin. How about "home prices are going through the inevitable correction after a period of lax lending allowed the multitude of howmuchamounths to bid up prices." Freddie Mac should say he is sorry andl write the definition of moral hazard on the blackboard 100 times.

And with all the commotion over Fannie and Freddie getting spanked, how did the market stage a late rally? Even if HeliBen is guaranteed to cut rates in December, that's small consolation when two big GSEs just got their guts ripped out by huge realized losses and tremendous unrealized asset drops.

Justme :

Oil might be a pretext, but I figure the U.S. defaulting on its debt when the world tries to cram it back down our throat is what will really tip governments over into 'fight' mode.

Brand said:
I have often pondered which is more likely: to find a cute, adventurous, sophisticated girl who isn’t already taken, or to find a stable, smart but relatively boring girl and help her to break out of her shell.

Stepford Deluxe with an open-source Linux kernel.

"Stepford Deluxe"

LOL! Hell, I'll take two!

That's the 3rd time today I've heard FNM/FRE referred to as a 'spanking'. I think "a good roger'ing" would be more appropriate.

OK I'm going to go out on a limb and theorize that Brand is over in England, that in fact, he's a Limey.

And, since the US is about to go into a collapse as thorough as that of the old USSR, Brand is simply getting first in line to purchase an American mail-order bride as Russian young women have been marketed and sold over the last 10 years.

DinOR

Your comment, "You know, people lived quite well for years w/ modest elec. service." is actually something that most of us have forgotten.

The house I grew up in was built in 1938 -- a cutting edge flat roof modern design with 4br / 2.5 bath 2200 sq. ft. + a full basement. And 60 amps service for the ENTIRE place. Oil heat; everything else electric (no AC)

Now granted that some additional power has been added for AC and an electric water heater, but most new places are built with what, 200 amps? 400 amps?

So much of what we need to do to conserve is simple -- turn things off when not in use. It drives me nuts when I go to the gym and see 2 people in the place and 9 televisions on (no, not kidding 9!). I turn off everything that's not being used, but c'mon. How hard is it to turn off the TV when you're done using the Stairmaster?

Let me troll for Peter P. ...

The USSC issued a writ of certiorari today in D.C. v Heller. The reason it took two weeks to issue the writ is that they decided to write their own issue statement.

sunny: Nope, I'm American, born in the steel towns of the East and transplanted into the Wild West. If my humor is a bit British, it's likely due to watching too much Monty Python (as if there could be such a thing). :)

@Bap33,

RE: "deep-earth" oil production:

I'm assuming you are referring to Thomas Gold and his theory of abiotic petroleum deep-crust formation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

I'm no expert on the subject, but the evidence in favor of Gold's theory seems scant, and his support among scientists (outside of Russia anyway) appears thin at best. Even if we assume he's 100% right and there are limitless abiotic reserves deep inside the crust just waiting to be found, there are two more problems:

(1) The technology does not yet exist to reach these alleged deep-crust reserves (much less extract them on an EROEI-positive basis), and

(2) You still have the fundamental problem of extracting and consuming the oil at a rate faster than it can be replenished. Whether or not oil is created abiogenically or biogenically, we're talking about geological timescales here --eons on a human scale.

Either way, I get the distinct impression we should be aggressively pursuing alternative sources of scalable energy while oil & gas are still abundant: nuclear (fission & fusion), coal, wind, solar, wave, biodiesel, geothermal, etc.

RE: pollution

I'm no Berkeley-smug tree hugger, and I don't care for a lot of California's poorly conceived top-down "environmental" mandates. Google "MTBE" if you'd like a lesson in the law of unintended consequences, Cali-style.

Even so, I am old enough to recall Stage-3 smog alerts when I was growing up and how just breathing made you feel like a 3-pack-a-day smoker. And I know first-hand how much better the air quality is today, largely thanks to catalytic converters and emission standards. I have no desire to return to the air quality of my youth (just the housing prices, population, traffic and overall standard of living ;-) ).

The U.S. has basically no control over what China or Mexico or any other sovereign country does. If they want to pollute the crap out of their water, land & air, there's not much we can do about it. We only have some control over what happens here.

And yes, a few million fewer illegals would do wonders for our air quality (and traffic, and crime, and wages, and the state budget, and the public education system, etc., etc.).

RE: ethanol (esp. corn-based):

I agree this is a non-starter as a replacement for fossil fuels. You'd have to plow under half the planet to be able to produce enough grains to replace all of the oil the world uses, assuming that's even possible. Ditto for hydrogen --hydrogen's an energy CARRIER, not an energy SOURCE. A basic fact of physics most people don't seem to comprehend.

Coal can help get us through the transition period, but in the long run, it will eventually peak and decline as well. Not to mention the fact it's one of the "dirtiest" most environmentally destructive forms of energy production there is, at least given current technology. Nuclear, on the other hand, has a bright future if done right (think France) --and if the public can get over its fears of "another Chernobyl".

Bap33,

Harm already covered most of what I would say. Some quick points:

1. Abiogenic oil -- I don't believe in it, but you can have your guess, as you said.

2. Smog reduction technology (catalytic converters) reduces energy efficiency. Yes, and in more ways than one. It let's people drive big terrible V8 cars that otherwise would have polluted something awful and would have been banned altogether. Another example of a good technology being perverted by the wrong usage model.

3. Coal: Dirty as hell. I wish we could use less of it.

4. China should reduce their consumption first: That's unreasonable. We consume (dissipate) more energy per capita than any other country in the world. Why should we not reduce first? I hope the answer isn't "because we are god's own country".

5. Ethanol. I agree, growing corn for ethanol is not a good solution. I'm not supporting it. Hydrogen is going to be even worse of a solution. Biodiesel is probably better.

6. Illegal aliens. I really don't think lead-footed illegal aliens is the real problem here. They're not helping, but they are not the problem.

ex-sunnyvale-renter,

>American mail-order bride

That will be the day!

Btw, I thought it was DinOR that sounded like a limey with the "good rogering" epxression.

SP,

>Stepford Deluxe with an open-source Linux kernel.

Uh, it might be better if the source isn't *too* open.
Or else you may not own the product.

-product
+end product

New thread: Schwarzenegger announces deal to FREEZE adjustable rates for state’s “highest-risk borrowers”

Bankster:

I am not sure what is going to happen, but I have a gut feeling that I cannot ignore. I think we are heading for a recession worst than the Great Depression.

I live between Detroit and Cleveland, 2 great crime cities. In the last 4 months I have purchased several "arms" with loads of ammo for each. If peak oil does hit along with the economic turmoil of the credit crunch, the police will not beable to "protect" anyone. Gas will be expensive and tax revenue will be low. Do you think those people in the cities are going to stay put while gas/food/ and other essentials sky rocket in price?

I hate to say it, but I am not worried about another country as much as I am worried about my fellow citizens. If someone decides they "deserve" my scarce resources more than me/my family, there will be some serious disagreements in the streets.

Bap33 said:
I tend to have a gut feeling that oil is created through some natural function

Truthiness - it's the wørd

justme Says:
Uh, it might be better if the source isn’t *too* open. Or else you may not own the end product.

The physical processor, peripherals and apps are not open source - I was only referring to the kernel.

EBGuy Says:
Who will save more gallons of fuel per year: the guy who trades in his monster Tahoe for the hybrid Tahoe or Dilbert driving his Civic hybrid instead of the regular version?

Yes, comparing an idiot in a 1 Tahoe vs. a dilbert in 1 Civic, driving the same distance over one year, the volume of gas saved by the Tahoe Hybrid may be greater than the volume of gas saved by the Civic Hybrid. Assuming it is largely stop-and-go commuting. However, this is a flawed argument. Of course you’ll save more fuel moving to a Tahoe hybrid because the Tahoe is MUCH thirstier than a Civic in the first place.

If that’s the main argument for buying a Tahoe hybrid, then it’s not much of an argument at all. In fact it would be interesting to see how much _real_ demand there is if the tax loophole favoring 6000lb+ vehicles is plugged, or if the government actually starts to apply smog and CAFE rules to these cretin-mobiles.

The point was not that putting a Hybrid in a Tahoe was a bad idea - but that calling it the "Green Car of the Year" is ridiculous. Purchasing a ladder after you have fallen into a hole is not nearly as praiseworthy as not falling into the hole in the first place.

HARM you said “Once again, Zephyr Von Knowitall charges in to Make His Point and… gets his facts completely wrong.”

You are certainly quick with the hostility.

First of all I cited no facts to get wrong, nor did I express any opinion about the peak oil theory. You criticize me for things I did not say. You then set the record straight for everyone by giving the real truth, which happens to fit perfectly with the point I was trying to make - that a sudden oil doomsday is not realistic. So I thank you for that. I lament that you did not get my point from what I wrote.

What I pointed out is that for almost 100 years now there have been some people who believe the oil doomsday is about to happen. Their deadlines for running out of oil have come and passed, and we still have oil. In fact, today we are extracting more oil than ever before. This may not be sustainable, but oil production is still rising.

However, I do agree with your comments about peak oil theory, and I do expect that oil will get progressively more difficult to find and extract. But that is very old news.

Technology will bring more efficient use of energy, and improved alternatives to oil. I see no energy doomsday. We have plenty of fuel. The real problem is the environmental consequences of using it.