geniousatwork
09-22 08:46 PM
My AP was approved on Sep2. Still awaiting the AP in mail.
wallpaper Football Clipart.
texanguy
02-02 01:45 PM
previously discussed.
check out my post and gc28262 's response in the following link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23111&page=2
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
check out my post and gc28262 's response in the following link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23111&page=2
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
rally
09-17 06:07 PM
Congrats on getting ur recepit!
Did your apps get transferred to Texas/Cal service centres? Does your recepit have LIN/SRC/WAC prefixes?
Thanks a lot!
Did your apps get transferred to Texas/Cal service centres? Does your recepit have LIN/SRC/WAC prefixes?
Thanks a lot!
2011 American Football Clipart
roseball
02-25 12:58 PM
I started talking to new employer about my joining and I requested for preparing PERM stuff before I join. This is the only this I want the new employer to do on behalf me before I join with him. The employer said Prevailing Wage determination takes 2 months. And the new employer mentioned that he can not do Prevailing Wage determination without joining. Is this right?
PWD has nothing to do with you joining them. All DOL does in PWD is it assigns a salary range based on the location of the job and the minimum requirements defined for the position. BTW, it is infact taking 2-3 months to get PWD these days.
PWD has nothing to do with you joining them. All DOL does in PWD is it assigns a salary range based on the location of the job and the minimum requirements defined for the position. BTW, it is infact taking 2-3 months to get PWD these days.
more...
whyregisteration
12-19 03:08 PM
Hi, friends,
NIW approved(RD: 7/2006, AD: 1/2007 at SRC) while 485 pending (not current country, July 3rd/2007 submitted and taking a rest in SRC also:)), FP has not received yet, called several times but nothing useful up to now.
Now EB1 just approved, I would like to submit another 485, what problem will cause? I heard that the relink would be a good choice, but I also heard some failed while some succeded :confused:
A lot of thanks for any input:):)
NIW approved(RD: 7/2006, AD: 1/2007 at SRC) while 485 pending (not current country, July 3rd/2007 submitted and taking a rest in SRC also:)), FP has not received yet, called several times but nothing useful up to now.
Now EB1 just approved, I would like to submit another 485, what problem will cause? I heard that the relink would be a good choice, but I also heard some failed while some succeded :confused:
A lot of thanks for any input:):)
jkays94
05-03 11:40 AM
Understood, I fully concur and if we remain on focus and on target with the message regarding legal immigrants we will get there. I will play my part by sending the reporter an email (as an individual incase the core has something in mind).
more...
LondonTown
03-08 03:32 PM
Thanks Drak. My attorney states otherwise though. He states that I-485 will be denied only after the ultimate denial of the I-140, which he says might take even about a year, and that in the mean time, I-485 will be valid and that she can continue to work on EAD.
P E R P L E X E D !!
I took advise of two lawyers (one is very famous) and both told that if I40 is denied/appealed - do not use EAD and file another PERM immediately, which I did.
P E R P L E X E D !!
I took advise of two lawyers (one is very famous) and both told that if I40 is denied/appealed - do not use EAD and file another PERM immediately, which I did.
2010 American Football Players
sanjeev.mehra@gmail.com
08-15 11:28 AM
If I am working with X company & Y company is ready to file GC.
(Assuming Y has no objections even if I do not join the company at all)
Is it mandatory for the candidate to join company Y at certain stage which has file GC?
If to be on safe side, I should join company Y at some point;
then what is that state - GC is approved (Once GC is in hand)
or even before that.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
(Assuming Y has no objections even if I do not join the company at all)
Is it mandatory for the candidate to join company Y at certain stage which has file GC?
If to be on safe side, I should join company Y at some point;
then what is that state - GC is approved (Once GC is in hand)
or even before that.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
more...
pappu
11-14 02:27 PM
Got notification from lawyer that my RIR for LC got rejected. It is pending in Phily BEC with a PD of Oct 2003.
What does this mean? Kiss my LC good bye? Please explian
ask for more info . there must be a reason for the rejection. you can also contest the decision by filing a motion.without complete information it is difficult to advice. do not worry, there is always a solution to every problem.
What does this mean? Kiss my LC good bye? Please explian
ask for more info . there must be a reason for the rejection. you can also contest the decision by filing a motion.without complete information it is difficult to advice. do not worry, there is always a solution to every problem.
hair American Football Player
knnmbd
08-30 12:36 PM
I read SKIL bill and it refers to "Exempts U.S.-educated professionals with advanced degrees". I Do not see why an online master degree does not fit in here. Maybe I am missing something :)
This is an excerpt of Section 201.
Section 201. United States Educated Immigrants. Exempts U.S.-educated professionals with advanced degrees and those who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience
in the United States from the annual green card (i.e. immigrant visa) cap.
All I was trying to say is that only "accredited" programs might be eligible, and I am not too sure how many online Master's fall in to this bracket, but not too many I guess, except for some of them offered from top-notch schools.
Again, this is just speculation as no one has yet seen the nuances of the bill.
This is an excerpt of Section 201.
Section 201. United States Educated Immigrants. Exempts U.S.-educated professionals with advanced degrees and those who have been awarded a medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience
in the United States from the annual green card (i.e. immigrant visa) cap.
All I was trying to say is that only "accredited" programs might be eligible, and I am not too sure how many online Master's fall in to this bracket, but not too many I guess, except for some of them offered from top-notch schools.
Again, this is just speculation as no one has yet seen the nuances of the bill.
more...
inspectorfox
07-22 09:20 PM
No big deal man...mine was approved in 2 days from NSC..;)
I think you guys just got lucky and should stop yapping!
There are many individuals who are stuck in Security/Background checks in the I-140 stage even with premium processing for almost a year.
I think you guys just got lucky and should stop yapping!
There are many individuals who are stuck in Security/Background checks in the I-140 stage even with premium processing for almost a year.
hot Football Player
MahaBharatGC
10-23 05:21 PM
Hi,
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
Plz, this is common sense...don't ever buy one-way ticket if you want to be under the radar...
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
Plz, this is common sense...don't ever buy one-way ticket if you want to be under the radar...
more...
house football clipart. mlkedave
Munna Bhai
12-14 10:15 AM
RFEs these days? Especialy for I140s?
Yes, too many RFEs and we can expect more very soon because of AC21 usage etc.
Yes, too many RFEs and we can expect more very soon because of AC21 usage etc.
tattoo american football players
GotGC??
03-09 12:36 PM
No surprises here...from Murthy Bulletin:
2. Employment-Based Visa Number Predictions
We are often asked by our clients at the Murthy Law Firm to predict the movement of immigrant visa numbers. We have some useful information for MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers in this regard. Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), which was attended by several attorneys from our firm. Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office’s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the “trickling effect” of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of “doubling dipping” for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. [The most recent Visa Bulletin chart is always available to our readers on MurthyDotCom.] The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
2. Employment-Based Visa Number Predictions
We are often asked by our clients at the Murthy Law Firm to predict the movement of immigrant visa numbers. We have some useful information for MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers in this regard. Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), which was attended by several attorneys from our firm. Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office’s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the “trickling effect” of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of “doubling dipping” for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. [The most recent Visa Bulletin chart is always available to our readers on MurthyDotCom.] The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
more...
pictures american football players
pappu
12-31 01:35 PM
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?
Family of three.
It maybe a case of load balancing between service centers, but sending to Vermont is odd after they started bi-specialization. Generally I have heard between Texas or Nebraska and in some cases to Local offices. Did the transfer notice say... we are transferring to speed up your case....?
May be not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload.
My case is not complicated (i believe) but transfered from Texas to Vermont.
(Hope not many adjudicators over there who can handle 485's or lot of workload. )
[QUOTE or has multiple applications?
Family of three.
It maybe a case of load balancing between service centers, but sending to Vermont is odd after they started bi-specialization. Generally I have heard between Texas or Nebraska and in some cases to Local offices. Did the transfer notice say... we are transferring to speed up your case....?
dresses Football Player Standing
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
makeup football players clipart.
inskrish
08-03 12:27 PM
I am freaking out thinking that my application fell behind a desk somewhere....
That seems better than my case. I had a dream in which the mail room clerk used my application to put his donuts and coffee.:)
Regards,
IK
That seems better than my case. I had a dream in which the mail room clerk used my application to put his donuts and coffee.:)
Regards,
IK
girlfriend American football Player
sgorla
02-23 01:54 PM
Thats right. It all depends on the state that H4 visa holder lives and intends to go to school; for instance State of Nevada does not allow H4 Visa holder to get in-state tution fee, however State of Ohio does allow in-state tution fee for H visa holders (includes H1 and H4).
This issue was discussed in 2 other threds in the last 2 months. I don't remember the name of the threads. Please search.
The status of I-140 application may be important. Out of state tution may depend on the state.
This issue was discussed in 2 other threds in the last 2 months. I don't remember the name of the threads. Please search.
The status of I-140 application may be important. Out of state tution may depend on the state.
hairstyles Football/Rugby Sports Clipart
lost_in_migration
05-15 01:31 PM
/\/\
willigetagc
08-15 09:06 AM
Hi,
If I am working with X company & Y company is ready to file GC.
(Assuming Y has no objections even if I do not join the company at all)
Is it mandatory for the candidate to join company Y at certain stage which has file GC?
I would appreciate your comments.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
Yes and no. Yes it is mandatory by definition. No because there are ways around. You could go join a school to get higher education. You could ask Y to terminate your employment.
Better still. AFter your GC is approved, get a letter from Y that "unfortunately the position is no longer available. You are most welcome to try for jobs in other areas". Then submit your resume and go for an interview or two, if called. Keep all records, emails. Then you are completely off the hook!!!
If I am working with X company & Y company is ready to file GC.
(Assuming Y has no objections even if I do not join the company at all)
Is it mandatory for the candidate to join company Y at certain stage which has file GC?
I would appreciate your comments.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
Yes and no. Yes it is mandatory by definition. No because there are ways around. You could go join a school to get higher education. You could ask Y to terminate your employment.
Better still. AFter your GC is approved, get a letter from Y that "unfortunately the position is no longer available. You are most welcome to try for jobs in other areas". Then submit your resume and go for an interview or two, if called. Keep all records, emails. Then you are completely off the hook!!!
randomdude
12-07 12:34 PM
I have my EAD for a rainy day.
In some cases where transfers from one center to another affected the RD, the concept is gray. if you are a risk taker you can try to swing it, but I do not recommend it. Check the RD on your 485 receipt. If it is 180 days from that date you are fine.
The only problem that can come by moving earlier is your employer may revoke your 140. There is no reason for them to do it, except out of spite (earlier they had the advantage of reusing the labor for someone else). If your relations with your employer will be smooth even after you move on, then that risk is alleviated.
Also remember that your 140 should be approved before you invoke AC21 to avoid potential problems from that area.
Thanks again for your reply KaiserSose
FYI, I sent my app to NSC and got a receipt from them. Then it got transferred to TSC which sent me a notice after 2 months. I do have the correct date on my receipt from NSC though and will wait for 180 days to finish based on this receipt date. I hope that eliminates all the risk, right?
As far as I140 goes, its already approved. :)
I am guessing there are no issues with me moving to AC21, correct?
In some cases where transfers from one center to another affected the RD, the concept is gray. if you are a risk taker you can try to swing it, but I do not recommend it. Check the RD on your 485 receipt. If it is 180 days from that date you are fine.
The only problem that can come by moving earlier is your employer may revoke your 140. There is no reason for them to do it, except out of spite (earlier they had the advantage of reusing the labor for someone else). If your relations with your employer will be smooth even after you move on, then that risk is alleviated.
Also remember that your 140 should be approved before you invoke AC21 to avoid potential problems from that area.
Thanks again for your reply KaiserSose
FYI, I sent my app to NSC and got a receipt from them. Then it got transferred to TSC which sent me a notice after 2 months. I do have the correct date on my receipt from NSC though and will wait for 180 days to finish based on this receipt date. I hope that eliminates all the risk, right?
As far as I140 goes, its already approved. :)
I am guessing there are no issues with me moving to AC21, correct?
No comments:
Post a Comment