The Fannie Mae serious delinquency rate peaked in February 2010 at 5.59%.
Note: These are mortgage loans that are "three monthly payments or more past due or in foreclosure".
Click on graph for larger image
The Fannie Mae serious delinquency rate has only fallen 0.37 percentage points over the last year - the pace of improvement has slowed - and at that pace the serious delinquency rate will not be below 1% until 2017.
The "normal" serious delinquency rate is under 1%, so maybe Fannie Mae serious delinquencies will be close to normal some time in 2017. This elevated delinquency rate is mostly related to older loans - the lenders are still working through the backlog.
Live from Evans Hall:*
Because of a brain tumor, Kofinas went years not knowing what he was saying, where he had been, or what he was doing. For example, he might have said Barack Obama in a sentence when he really meant American actor and filmmaker Denzel Washington.
The condition grew worse over time. New York state and Boston the city could easily be the same, or even reversed on a map. He lost most of his friends as it appeared to them he was on some wildly powerful drugs.
He could not remember anything he was doing or even why he was there. The memories were stored somewhere in his brain, but he could not process information correctly at the moment, nor retrieve those memories later.
Following brain surgery, he was immediately coherent. Over the next few weeks and months all his lost memories came back.
For the whole story, please see Demetri Kofinas' article A tumor stole every memory I had. This is what happened when it all came back.
Those living in New York, may wish to see Twelfth Night, Offline Productions' rendition of a Shakespearean classic.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
A reader who happens to be a mortgage loan originator send along this awesome graphic.
Or not . . .
“I think the left wants slow growth because that means people are more dependent upon government,” Bush told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.
Remember, this is the establishment candidate for the GOP nomination — and he thinks he’s living in Atlas Shrugged.
Back when Romney made his "47 percent" remark, Rich Lowry of the National Review Online responded:
...The contention is that if people aren’t paying federal income taxes, they are essentially freeloaders who will vote themselves more government benefits knowing that they don’t have to pay for them. As NR’s Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there’s no evidence for this dynamic. ...
Fear of the creation of a class of “takers” can slide into disdain for people who are too poor — or have too many kids or are too old — to pay their damn taxes. For a whiff of how politically unattractive this point of view can be, just look at the Romney fundraising video.
Bush didn't learn a thing from Romney' venture down this road. "There's no evidence" for the charge itself, it's a political loser except with a certain population that would vote Republican in any case, and it falsely asserts that Democrats are opposed to policies that spur economic growth (hence our repeated calls for things like infrastructure to provide jobs, get the economy ready for a highly competitive international economy, and avoid the potential for secular stagnation?).
What we are opposed to, or what I am opposed to -- guess I should speak for myself -- is growth where all the benefits are captured by those at the top. Imperfections in economic institutions along with changes in the rules of the game pushed forward by those with political influence have caused those at the top to be rewarded in excess of their contribution to economic output, while those at the bottom have gotten less than their contribution. It's not "taking" to increase taxes at the top and return income to those who actually earned it, to the real makers who toil each day at jobs they'd rather not do to support their families. It's a daily struggle for many, a struggle that would be eased if they simply earned an amount equivalent to their contributions. That's why it's so "politically unattractive", people explicitly or implicitly understand they have been, for lack of a better word, screwed by the system. The blame is sometimes misplaced, but that doesn't change the nature of the problem. They don't want "free stuff," they want what they deserve, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
The other thing I'm opposed to is tax cuts for those at the top that make this problem even worse without delivering any corresponding benefits. These tax cuts redistribute income upward and cause the income received by workers to fall even further below their contribution, and there's no corresponding benefit to economic growth (or if there is, it's very, very small). We keep hearing that putting money in the hands of the "makers' at the top will produce magical growth, but the reality is that these are the true takers, the ones who are receiving far more from the economy than they contribute, while those who actually work their butts off each day to make the things we all need and enjoy struggle to pay their bills.