|
Dear ,
Reading Between the Lines!
As I've written about before folks, when you read the news you have to be able to read between the lines. You need to always question the stats you read (yes even from me) and you need to do your own research if the stats don't pass the smell test. You also need to be able to connect the dots between different articles. Let me give you an example from this week.
Here is the first headline from August 9, 2012.
 | | (Click to read article) |
Now to the casual reader, what does this headline mean? The housing crisis is over and things are starting to improve. Happy days may be just ahead. It would be great if it is true but before we make a judgment let's see what other news is out there.
Let's take a look at this article from Reuters on August 8, 2012.
 | | (Click to read article) |
This article seems to say not so fast. While it acknowledges that prices are rising in some areas, it points out that prices in other areas are still being discounted aggressively. The other point that this article makes repeatedly is that foreclosures are falling which is leading to a shortage of supply.
Here's a question. Is that true? You can't just assume that because it is in article from a respected source such as Reuters that it is in fact true. I'm not saying there is any sort of intent to mislead here, just that the article was probably written by a staff writer who may or may not be all that knowledgeable about real estate.
Take a look at this next article.
 | | (Click to read article) |
Well how about that. On August 9, 2012 I found this article from the Associated Press, another respected source. This article tells us that foreclosures are rising not falling as the author of the Reuters article from yesterday stated. Not only that but the AP article tells us that foreclosures rose "as lenders tackled a backlog of mortgages gone unpaid". What does that tell us folks? There is a clue there. Do you know what it is?
In addition it tells us that July was the third month in a row that foreclosures had increased. Wait a minute. How can that be? The article in Reuters yesterday said just the opposite. They can't both be correct can they? Looks like it is time for some more in depth research to figure this one out.
Do you have the time or the desire to do that research? For 99% of you the answer is of course not! You've got better things to do with your time. Fortunately for you there are geeks like me who love this stuff. This is what we do. We scan the news all day long, looking for disparities and anomalies that may provide opportunities for our clients.
Folks, I've done the research here and I believe that there are opportunities in this situation for those that want to take advantage of them. Would you like to know what those opportunities are? If so give us a call or send me an email inviting me to call you.
preames@reamesfinancial.com
Folks, this is what we do all week long. If you'd like to be kept up to date on the things that we see going on then make sure you swing by our website:
www.reamesfinancial.com
and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!
 
You'll be glad you did!
Well Duh!!!
Here's a headline from Friday August 10, 2012
 | | (Click to read article) |
My first response when I saw the article was "well duh!". They had to be told that? After 2007-2009 wouldn't that just be common sense? But what really got my attention was this next part. "emphasizing that the banks could not count on the government for help" Wow!
We've got one of two things going on here in my opinion. The one possibility is that the government has run the numbers, looked at the political landscape and is sending a message that for whatever combination of reasons, if the banks get in trouble again they will not be bailed out. The other option is that the government is simply bluffing. They are trying to send a tough message to the ratings agencies to convince them that we are getting our fiscal house in order. Kind of like the parent that tells a kid that if you don't straighten up you're not going to get any ice cream when both the parent and the kid know that the parent will give in in the end. Which do you think it will be? Please vote in our survey. I'll report the results next week! And my final question for you is this. Why did the regulators find it necessary right now? What do they know that the rest of us don't? What do we always say folks?
Until next week , Protect Your Wealth! Sincerely,
 
| 
