Showing posts with label Option Arm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Option Arm. Show all posts

Thursday, May 21, 2009

April’s jump in home sales marks the 10th consecutive month of increasing home sales in Southern California.

TO BE NOTED: From HousingWire:

"Home Sales Hot, Hot, Hot in Southern California

Posted By KELLY CURRAN
May 20, 2009 10:29 am

Southern California homes sold at a faster year-over-year pace in April, as first-time buyers and investors continued to target distressed inland properties, according to information from MDA DataQuick.

April’s jump in home sales marks the 10th consecutive month of increasing home sales in Southern California.

A total of 20,514 new and resale houses and condos closed in the six-county Southland in April. That’s up 5.2% from 19,506 in March and up 31.4% from 15,615 a year ago, according to the real estate information service.

Foreclosure resales –- homes sold in April that had been foreclosed on in the prior 12 months –- accounted for a significant 53.6% of all Southland resales last month, marking the seventh consecutive month in which post-foreclosure properties made up more than half of all resales.

The number of single-family houses that resold during the month was at near-record-high levels in many inland areas where nearby foreclosures have forced home values to fall — places such as Palmdale, Lancaster, Moreno Valley, Perris, Indio, San Jacinto, Lake Elsinore and Victorville.

New home builders are experiencing less favorable conditions, as deep discounts associated with foreclosures create stiff competition. Last month, builders sold the lowest number of newly constructed homes for April since 1988 — 21 years!

And more affluent neighborhoods, typically closer to the coast, where foreclosures and steep discounts are less common, are still feeling the pinch of the housing slump. Existing home sales in Beverly Hills, Malibu and Manhattan Beach remained at near-record-lows for April, according to DataQuick.

The slow sales in high-end markets is likely attributed largely to the lack of credit available, particularly in the jumbo market. Before the credit crunch hit in August 2007, a whopping 40% of Southland sales were financed with jumbo loans, while only 10.9% were financed with jumbo loans in April.

In the more affordable inland areas, first-time buyers seem to rely heavily on government-insured FHA financing. Such loans were used to finance 39.1% of all Southland home purchases last month, up from 18.4% a year ago.

Absentee buyers, which includes investors, bought 18.6% of the areas homes sold last month. That’s up slightly from 17% a year ago and above the 15% monthly average since 2000.

“In many markets we’ve seen signs you’d expect to see not long before prices would normally stabilize: robust investor and first-time-buyer activity, 10-plus months of year-over-year sales gains, and less price erosion, if any,” says John Walsh, MDA DataQuick president.

“The problem,” he continues, “is that we still face two big threats to price stability: layoffs…and possibly a new round of foreclosures triggered by defaults on ‘option ARM’ and ‘stated income’loans used in mid-to high-end markets.”

Write to [1] Kelly Curran."

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Modifying mark-to-market gives them the key to the front gate as well

TO BE NOTED: From Option ARMageddon:

"Letter to FASB: Don’t Change Mark-to-Market! March 29, 2009 – 3:49 pm

by Rolfe Winkler, CFA

John Gavin of Disclosure Insight has written a letter to FASB opposing its proposal to refine mark-to-market rules. Like John, I hope FASB sees the light.

It has been said that changing MTM rules would be like giving inmates keys to their own prison. Seems to me banks already have keys—to their own cells certainly, and to every other door inside the prison. After all, they have wide latitude to mark most assets to model (level 2) or to myth (level 3). Modifying mark-to-market gives them the key to the front gate as well.

From John:

Our letter includes…a study we published only about 10 days ago entitled, “Bank Goodwill Impairment Study.” Using goodwill as a proxy for overall balance sheet integrity, we found reason to question the…balance sheets for at least 70% of 50 of the largest banks trading in the US. That’s largely because a full 70% did not impair goodwill (at all) at year-end despite a significant percentage of them trading below book and even tangible book values (we called Bank of America the poster child in that regard and provide analysis of why their $80+ billion in goodwill is desperately in need of impairment).

This is the list of all the people/entities that have submitted comments to the FASB thus far. No surprise here, the majority are from the banks who have clearly organized themselves to keep the heat on the FASB.

Ours is letter #38. It appears we are the only independent investment research firm taking a stand on this.

The study attached to the letter (pages 4-15) includes some great data tables. I highly recommend it. The pdf format is easier to read than Scribd’s version, a link to it here.

Letter to FASB: Don’t Change Mark-to-Market!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

That defies logic.

From Option ARMageddon:

"Jim Rogers: Bailouts Increase Depression Risk March 17, 2009 – 3:15 pm

by Rolfe Winkler, CFA

This post’s title comes from an interview Rogers did with Bloomberg, published today. Below is a recent interview in which Rogers makes the OA argument that more debt will only compound our economic troubles…

The idea that you can solve a problem of too much debt and too much consumption with more debt and more consumption….That defies logic.

More on this topic (What's this?)
Jim Rogers Hates Bailouts and Loves Farming
Wolfgang Munchau: Abandon All Hope.....
Jim Rogers' Latest Comments: February 13, 2009
Read more on Jim Rogers, U.S. Economic Cycles at Wikinvest"

Me:

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I like Jim Rogers,and but I disagree with him in the following ways:
    1) Debt-Deflation has no natural stopping point. He seems to think that we’ll hit some bottom, and then just dig ourselves out. I don’t believe that. Some holes are simply to big to dig out of without people chucking the free market aside or crushing it. In my view, he’s too optimistic about people accepting a downturn stoically.
    2) Deflation is much worse than inflation because it’s disorienting. Inflation will be a tough battle, but I am much more sanguine that we can beat that than I am about our beating deflation. Always move a battle onto a terrain that you are familiar with.
    3) Our social safety net is not as good as he presumes. Again, people are not going to simply accept high unemployment without demanding help from the government.
    4) Paradoxes are part of life and logic. Read a good Raymond Smullyan book. There is nothing inherently silly about going more into debt temporarily if you can invest that money into things that will generate a profit going forward. You can only judge that by the investments and spending. It is not a rule of logic or implicature.

    By Don the libertarian Democrat on Mar 17, 2009

And:

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Aaron,

    Thanks for the response. I take it that Irving Fisher himself answered your points about Debt-Deflation and why deflation is disorienting in his classic paper, but you can disagree. It does matter if people accept a downturn and that social upheaval is a precarious situation unable to be clearly predicted. The most important writings on this are by Edmund Burke. That you disagree is fine.

    But on the logic point, you said nothing. I understand that a person can disagree or dislike what the borrowing is being used for in practice, but it is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of whether or not the investment or money is well spent. That was my point.

    Although I generally agree with Jim Rogers, I disagree about how to get out of this situation. It is not enough to say it’s a matter of logic if it isn’t. My disagreement with him is purely practical and pragmatic. I don’t think that his solutions will work in this situation. The point of my post was to show that people can agree on many of the problems and goals, and yet disagree practically on how to right the ship, so to speak. For me, again following Burke, this is because there’s a difference between Politics and Political Theory, and Economics and Political Economy.

    Again, I understood and enjoyed your comments.

    Don

    By Don the libertarian Democrat on Mar 17, 2009

And:

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Merry,

    Thanks for the response. You are correct. Hyperinflation is the fear. Here’s one post on why I fear it less than Deflation:

    http://fatasmihov.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-there-be-hyperinflation-in-us.html

    My view of QE is based on this:

    Read W.Buiter “Helicopter Money” here:

    http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/helijpe.pdf

    Finally, speaking of paradoxes. Jim Rogers is a libertarian. Yet, he says that China, because it has such large reserves, is in better position to weather this crisis. China has a planned economy at the top. It put into place a national economic plan that put it in this position. Did the fact that China has a central authority help it in this case?

    By Don the libertarian Democrat on Mar 18, 2009

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Removing the risk of failure from the banking equation eliminates discipline within the profession.

From Option ARMageddon:

"Lunchtime Links 3-14 March 14, 2009 – 12:16 pm

by Rolfe Winkler, CFA

(Send links, videos, pics to optionarmageddon at gmail with subject “link” … Thanks to Kippy—$20 —for her donation!)

U.S. Insists Fears Over Debt Unfounded (WSJ) Yeah, right. Another problem for the administration will be its growth targets. Future deficit projections depend on tax receipts, which depend on economic growth. The administration’s growth forecast is way to rosy given the swift deterioration we’ve seen. Look for an epiphany that tax receipts are coming in much lower than forecast in the next few months…

The Looting of America’s Coffers (David Leonhardt) The NYT columnist’s latest is today’s must read.

Bring Back the Bank Run! (James Grant) This article from 1990 is even more relevant today. “What has been lacking in American banking in recent years is the bank run….With the wholesale substitution of federal promises, actual or implied, for conservative banking practices, the caliber of lending has inevitably suffered.” This gets to the problem of deposit insurance, which I have blogged about at length. Removing the risk of failure from the banking equation eliminates discipline within the profession.

Baby Ponzi (The Hook) Virginia man arrested by Feds in $11 million Ponzi case. “He seemed like a very pleasant guy,” said one person who saw [the perp] at work. “I visited his office once….He had a bunch of computers. It seemed like a very sophisticated operation.”

200 FDIC Agents Arrive in Puerto Rico (Carribean Business) “a decision was made to investigate several banks at the same time, which is why so many more agents than usual were in town.” (hat tip CalculatedRisk)

Madoff Lists $826 million of assets (WSJ) Much of it, his ownership interest in his business, is likely worth far less now.

Fannie Mae’s Last Stand (Vanity Fair)

Ethics Education Looks Like a Growth Industry (CFA Mag) DollarCollapse.com’s John Rubino on the need for ethics training. “Business in general and finance in particular operate in tax and regulatory environments where pushing the envelope is both lucrative and frequently encouraged.”

Me:

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I’m of big fan of Grant and your blog, but, just as with getting rid of the SEC, which Grant proposes, we can’t get rid of the FDIC.

    Why? Because they’re not in place to protect you or James Grant. In fact, don’t think of them in economic terms at all. Think of them as rules put in to get some people to accept the system. Many people believe that a free market of banks and investors would naturally lead to collusion among them to the detriment of average citizens. The rules and enforcers are there to stop that from happening.

    Now, there’s a very good argument that the rules and enforcers are a kind of Potemkin system designed to fool the average citizen, and that leads to the question of how to change it.

    My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that most people will favor stringent enforcement and better rules, not the abandonment of both, which many would see as the whole point of running the system so poorly: namely, to get rid of it.

    So, some regulations are going to have to be put in place. It’s really a question of how onerous they need to be. Of course, maybe I’m wrong, and people will accept a totally free market system. On that, I wish you good luck, and would be happy to see it happen, if it included a guaranteed income and some form of health care, a la Milton Friedman.

    By Don the libertarian Democrat on Mar 14, 2009

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Better they absorb losses than taxpayers…

From Option ARMageddon:

"Lunchtime Links 3-12 March 12, 2009 – 12:09 pm

by Rolfe Winkler, CFA

(Send links, videos, pics to optionarmageddon at gmail with subject “link” … Thanks to Brian G.—$20 —for the donation!)

Madoff pleads guilty, goes to jail (LA Times)

S&P Cuts GE’s Credit Rating (Bloomberg) GE is no longer AAA, but everyone already knew that. AAA credits don’t need huge government guarantees to backstop their debt. Further downgrades would be more painful since that would force the company to post collateral, creating a liquidity crunch at a time when the company is already short of capital.

FDIC collected few insurance fees for a decade (CalculatedRisk) No wonder the Deposit Insurance Fund is short of cash.

Regulatory Report shows 5 Largest Banks Face Huge Loss Risk (McClatchy)

Most Americans Hanging by a Thread (HousingWire) Half say they couldn’t survive financially more than a month without their current job.

Banks’ Bondholders May be Next to Share Bailout Pain (Bloomberg) After equity is wiped out, investors higher up the capital structure are exposed to losses. Fact is, the healthiest way to resolve this crisis is to put insolvent banks into receivership and cram-down losses onto bondholders. Better they absorb losses than taxpayers…

FHLB of Seattle short of capital (Seattle Times) Five of the twelve Federal Home Loan Banks are showing signs of distress. The Fannie/Freddie bailout is supposed to protect the FHLB system as well. That bailout is looking far more expensive already than the $400 billion promised.

Forbes billionaire list includes drug trafficker (Forbes) The list declined from 1,125 last year to 793 this year as $1.4 trillion of their wealth vanished.

Fed releases latest Flow of Funds report (pdf—FederalReserve.gov) Lots of juicy data I’ll be blogging about later this afternoon. One headline stat: Americans’ net worth fell 18% last year, erasing four years of gains.

The First 10 T-Shirts to Buy a Newborn (Uncoached.com)"

Me:

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “Fact is, the healthiest way to resolve this crisis is to put insolvent banks into receivership and cram-down losses onto bondholders. Better they absorb losses than taxpayers…”

    We’re going to pay any way you look at it. There are two main bondholders:

    1) Insurers: I’m not certain, but I believe that these are the next people who will need, and, yes, get a bailout.
    2) Foreign investors: If we default on them, they’re simply going to demand higher interest rates before lending us any more money going forward, including from our businesses.

    There’s no magic bullet. It is better to guarantee the bondholders in order to ease the seizing of the large insolvent banks. It’s a risk, but less onerous than the alternatives, sad to say. Believe me, I hope that I’m not right and we can just stiff everybody, but I don’t see that happening.

    By Don the libertarian Democrat on Mar 12, 2009

Friday, January 2, 2009

"In sum, these firms just got hired to use the public’s money to buy assets from themselves."

A couple of posts focus on the Conflict Of Interest inherent in the Fed's MBS Purchase Program and the four named firms. First, Mr. Mortgage:

"MBS - The Fed (tax payer) Has to Bailout Foreign Central Banks

Posted on January 2nd, 2009 in Daily Mortgage/Housing News - The Real Story, Mr Mortgage's Personal Opinions/Research

“….over the next few quarters the Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets, and it stands ready to expand its purchases of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities as conditions warrant.”

I don’t think this recent move has to do as much about lower mortgage rates for you and me rather Foreign Central Banks and the likes of Bill Gross being in a panic over their holdings( HERE WE GO ). Before this announcement in early December, MBS were not performing well with all-time historic wide spreads over longer dated Treasuries.

As a matter of fact, there is a good chance rates do not come down to the levels being forecast. After nearly a month of constant headlines about the Fed buying Agency MBS, a 30-year fixed today is still around 5.25% at 1 point vs 5.75% prior. A few days in the past month we saw sharp dips down under the 5% level, but that market action was fleeting lasting one or two days and rates quickly shot back up.

Foreign Central Banks have been in the US mortgage market for a long time and arguably did not know what a mess the GSE’s and their lending practices were. Bill Gross, the largest holder of Agency debt outside of the FCB’s, admittedly bought a large portion of his present position front running the Fed knowing full well the risks in owning mortgage-related debt. Until the Fed made its recent announcement, all Agency debt owners were feeling a tremendous amount of pain, as MBS’ had been kicked to the curb in favor of UST. Wars have been waged for much less than seeding an FCB’s balance sheet with hundreds of billions in toxic securities.

Drastic times call for drastic measures and printing, in order to buy MBS, was a real ‘Hail Mary’ move. But I suppose it had to be done given that at the end of November, the mortgage scene was looking bleak. 10-year Treasures were holding below 4%, the short had been bid to zero and mortgage rates were rising as the government refused (and still does) to issue that illusive ‘explicit’ guaranty. Currently, with the GSE’s in conservatorship Agency MBS have an ‘effective’ guaranty.

It is no doubt that the FCB’s, with the global crisis reaching deep into their balance sheet’s as well, were not too thrilled about owning relatively illiquid GSE mortgage debt without a ‘Full Faith and Credit’ backing( IMPLICIT GUARANTEE. NO. THEY WEREN'T ). Especially considering how the sector worsens monthly as home prices tumble, defaults surge and the nation is in the midst of one of the nastiest recessions ever. To top it off the solons (ex-Ben) that created all of the ‘plans’ leave office and the fate of the GSE’s and the paper they back is anybody’s guess. Adding another $5 trillion in mortgage guarantees on top of the near $9 trillion in existing backing could do some real damage to the US sovereign debt rating.

GSE MBS used to be relatively liquid with predicable durations. But now with values down creating epidemic negative-equity across America, defaults surging and unemployment rising, nobody has any clue how long these loans/MBS will be on balance sheet. Very few home owners keep a loan for 30-years that’s for sure. If they don’t or can’t refi then death, disease, job-loss etc will get them over time. Very few MBS holders likely ever thought they would be in their positions as long as many presently even have. I can promise you that China and Russia do not want to be landlords of a bunch of over-leveraged, unemployed American’s.

Who would want a bunch of Agency MBS after everything that is now known about all of their Alt-A and Subprime holdings, terrible risk management and massive house price depreciation that results in significant losses every time a loan is foreclosed upon? ‘Face value’ surely doesn’t mean what it used to now that the collateral underlying the securities is down 25% to 75% over the past 18-months depending upon where the properties are located. Most Agency MBS in existence today are time bombs( NOT ACCORDING TO WILLIAM GROSS ).

Foreign Central Banks Pare Agency Debt –Uncertainty May Cloud Fannie, Freddie Note Sales in First Week of New Year — By PRABHA NATARAJAN

In a sign of the uncertainty weighing on mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, foreign central banks continued to trim holdings of U.S. mortgage-related debt( NOT GUARANTEED ).

This comes as the two nationalized firms, which together account for about half of the $12 trillion U.S. home-loan market, are slated to sell debt issues in the first week of 2009.

Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published Monday show foreign-central-bank holdings of debt related to the mortgage companies, including debt sold by the Federal Home Loan Bank system, stood at about $819 billion on Dec. 24, down from $833 billion on Dec. 17.

Foreign-central-bank holdings of this debt, which includes bonds sold directly by the firms and mortgage-backed securities they guarantee, reached a peak of nearly $986 billion in mid-July, after the Treasury first asked for the authority to extend its credit lines to these firms. Click link above for more…

So, what is the most efficient way to help our FCB buddies sell their trash MBS? Right…get the US taxpayer to buy it. Print money( THIS IS WHAT I THINK THAT THEY WERE SAYING THEY WOULDN'T DO IN THAT ODD BIT OF CIRCULAR REASONING. ) and put a bid under MBS for the next year with announcements and selective buying of $5 billion here and there whenever the market gets weak. Then the FCB’s and Gross can sell into artificial strength and buy US Treasuries with an explicit guaranty( THAT'S THE PLAN. ).

“Purchases will be financed through the creation of additional bank reserves.”

“The goal of the program is to provide support to mortgage and housing markets and to foster improved conditions in financial markets more generally.”

“The New York Fed will adjust the pace of its purchases based on input from the investment managers about market conditions and the impact of the program. The investment managers will be required to purchase securities frequently and to disclose the Federal Reserve as principal.”

Maybe PIMCO, as one of the four chosen investment manager and largest owners of GSE MBS, can start paying its dividend on all of its funds again soon. If this is not ‘the fox in charge of the hen house’ I do not know what is.( THERE IS NO WAY TO WRING THIS PROBLEM OUT OF THIS PLAN. THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF CRONYISM AND COLLUSION ARE A REAL PROBLEM. )

On a higher level, this approach could kill all sorts of birds with one stone unless the parties involved don’t follow through with the Treasury buying plan and decide to sell those into strength too. That could put the US in a position where the Fed is the lender of last resort printing money like crazy to buy everything ( THAT IS A GUARANTEE, HOWEVER )— that would be bad news…Doh!

If this is indeed the plan, the big question going forward is if the buy pressure from the Fed and all of the lemmings chasing the Fed is enough to offset the sell pressure from the Foreign Central Banks. If buy and sell pressure are about equal, obviously MBS and rates tread water. If not and people smarten up to what is really happening and panic out of MBS, then rates go up quickly( INFLATION ). That is of course unless the Fed cranks up the tax payer printing press and buys more they announced, which is a highly probably outcome( STILL INFLATION ).

After nearly two-years of misinformation and games why don’t they just be honest this time around…( THAT IS ESSENTIAL, AND IT IS A CORNERSTONE OF BAGEHOT'S PRINCIPLES. )

To ensure the system stays together, wars are not waged and mortgage rates don’t shoot to 20%, the US taxpayer is being called upon to clear the balance sheets of Foreign Central Banks and investors( YES ). These parties which did not understand that there was never an ‘explicit’ guaranty( THERE WAS AN IMPLICIT GUARANTEE, AND IT HAS NOW COME DUE MY FRIEND. ) and trusted that what we were selling were not balance sheet nuclear bombs are needed this minute to fund our book.-Best Mr Mortgage

Another look at this from my buddy Rolfe at Option Armageddon: Self-Bailouts: Nice Work if you can get it"

From Option Armageddon:

"Nice work, if you can get it

December 31, 2008 – 1:28 am

by Rolfe Winkler, CFA

The Federal Reserve will print money to buy $500 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities by June, specifically MBS issued by Fannie, Freddie and their sister Ginnie Mae. And guess who the Fed has hired to manage the purchases? PIMCO, Goldman, BlackRock and Wellington.( IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IS SIMPLY ANOTHER FORM OF TARP BUYING TOXIC ASSETS. THE THEORY IS THAT THESE MBSs WILL BE BOUGHT HERE IN A DOWNTURN, AND SOLD IN THE FUTURE FOR A PROFIT, AND CHEAPLY FINANCED BY THE FED. SAME THEORY AS THE ORIGINAL TARP PLAN. )

This is quite a scam for all of them, especially PIMCO( SAME CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROBLEM AS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH TARP. ONLY NOW, WE NEED TO KNOW HOW PIMCO MADE OUT IN THE GMAC DEAL AS WELL. ). The ultimate self-bailout you might call it. As of June 30th, 61% of the PIMCO’s assets were invested in MBS. $500 billion in total. No doubt the others also own a pile of Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie bonds.

In sum, these firms just got hired to use the public’s money to buy assets from themselves.

Is it any wonder why PIMCO chief Bill Gross argued so vociferously for Treasury to start buying troubled assets? In a much publicized investor letter on Sept 4th, he said the following:

If we are to prevent a continuing asset and debt liquidation of near historic proportions, we will require policies that open up the balance sheet of the U.S. Treasury.

To be fair, he wasn’t wrong. A “debt liquidation of historic proportions” is indeed what would have happened had the Fed and Treasury not stepped in( I AGREE ). And that would have crippled the world economy. But Gross, the largest bond fund manager on the planet, may have been hardest hit of all.( I AM, AND REMAIN, A WILLIAM GROSS FAN. BUT AS I SAID EARLIER ABOUT TARP, I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN EVEN TRUST WILLIAM GROSS IN THIS SITUATION. )

Once upon a time, the Chinese owned hundreds of billions worth of MBS themselves, as did the Russians. But when Fan and Fred collapsed, the foreigners skedaddled( FROM IMPLICIT TO EXPLICIT GUARANTEES. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? ). Can you blame them? They had invested their people’s hard-earned savings in piles of Fannie and Freddie debt which, save for a U.S. Treasury guarantee, would have fallen precipitously in value. Now the government has to make good on that guarantee( THAT'S RIGHT. THE IMPLICIT GUARANTEE HAS BECOME EXPLICIT. ), buying up all these MBS that no one else wants.

The Fed argues this will boost housing by lowering mortgage interest rates. In reality, lower rates may actually “spur a new wave of defaults.”( COULD BE )

By the way, the Fed will “monitor” each firm to avoid conflicts of interest( THE MAIN PROBLEM, AND IT CAN'T BE AVOIDED IF THIS PLAN IS USED. ):

Each investment manager will be required to implement ethical walls that appropriately segregate the investment management team that implements the Federal Reserve’s agency MBS program from other advisory and proprietary trading activities of the firm. The New York Fed will monitor each investment manager’s compliance with this requirement.

Good thing we have “ethical walls” to protect taxpayers."

We do have walls around the Torah, according to Pirke Avot. Anyway, you can see that this Conflict Of Interest is going to be an important issue going forward. That's why I think that this plan is a mistake. It has a large Social as well as Economic downside. I do hope it works, however, if we do it.