BharatPremi
08-10 05:22 PM
guys, this kind of proposals have been raised million times in last 5 years. These guys are passing their time till next election. Nothing is going to happen till next election. So do not build any hopes. None of the proposal is going to be a law before election.
wallpaper Azerbaijan#39;s Ell and Nikki
raju6855
02-06 09:49 AM
What number do you call?
Thx
Thx
satyasrd
06-14 08:56 AM
This is something that I have requested so many times now but never get a response except for "another July 2007 will never happen again". I am not sure how thousands like me will ever get any relief if we are not allowed to file I-485 and get EAD. How many more years do we have to wait for that... 5, 10, 15 ?!?! This is absolutely ridiculous.
Guys,Please do something for priority dates to be current.We are despirately waiting from 4years to file I-485...EAD...I-140 is approved long back.Atleast in this summer we are hoping......
Guys,Please do something for priority dates to be current.We are despirately waiting from 4years to file I-485...EAD...I-140 is approved long back.Atleast in this summer we are hoping......
2011 Ell/Nikki - Running Scared
fromnaija
07-20 11:48 AM
You assume the original poster is from India. He did not state so in his post or do you know him personally?
Nice suggestion, buddy :p
New Delhi Embassy still have Aug 2007 dates available
Nice suggestion, buddy :p
New Delhi Embassy still have Aug 2007 dates available
more...
When Green?
07-30 09:05 AM
Dear Experts and Attorneys:
Here is my situation:
My employment was terminated by my Manager (no reasons given on paper, and the reasons he gave me were not valid when I discussed with my previous manager even per the company policy)
I am in the process of finalizing between a couple of offers (Hopefully would be able to make a decision by sometime next week). My previous manager is trying to get me into his project after I explained my I-485 application status. My PD is Aug-06 (EB-3), I-140 pending.
My spouse is on H-4. My initial plan before all this drama (Initial withdrawal of July visa bulletin and employment termination), I got all my documents signed and ready to be sent out from my attorney's office.
After this sequence of events, the attorney refuses to submit my I-485 application (because it could be considered Fraud).
Now I need your expert advice on the following situations:
1. Would it be ideal to join the same company in a different department and ask the lawyer to file my I-485? Use the AC21 portability after 180 days of pending application?
2. I read somewhere that for me to use the AC21 portability, I need to be in the same profile and also same pay range that was approved on my initial labor application. Is it true? I am currently being offered 15K more than what I have been making till now.
3. I have 3 more years of H-1B left, so what are the chances of getting a new green card process started under EB-2, and port the Aug-06 priority date after the I-140 is approved? How long would you anticipate it would take for me to get to the I-485 stage? Just a ball park from the experience on the forum would be great!
I have been out of the job for the past 2 weeks. would it be a problem for me while applying for a new labor certification?
I greatly appreciate your responses.
Thank you.
Here is my situation:
My employment was terminated by my Manager (no reasons given on paper, and the reasons he gave me were not valid when I discussed with my previous manager even per the company policy)
I am in the process of finalizing between a couple of offers (Hopefully would be able to make a decision by sometime next week). My previous manager is trying to get me into his project after I explained my I-485 application status. My PD is Aug-06 (EB-3), I-140 pending.
My spouse is on H-4. My initial plan before all this drama (Initial withdrawal of July visa bulletin and employment termination), I got all my documents signed and ready to be sent out from my attorney's office.
After this sequence of events, the attorney refuses to submit my I-485 application (because it could be considered Fraud).
Now I need your expert advice on the following situations:
1. Would it be ideal to join the same company in a different department and ask the lawyer to file my I-485? Use the AC21 portability after 180 days of pending application?
2. I read somewhere that for me to use the AC21 portability, I need to be in the same profile and also same pay range that was approved on my initial labor application. Is it true? I am currently being offered 15K more than what I have been making till now.
3. I have 3 more years of H-1B left, so what are the chances of getting a new green card process started under EB-2, and port the Aug-06 priority date after the I-140 is approved? How long would you anticipate it would take for me to get to the I-485 stage? Just a ball park from the experience on the forum would be great!
I have been out of the job for the past 2 weeks. would it be a problem for me while applying for a new labor certification?
I greatly appreciate your responses.
Thank you.
realizeit
03-20 09:12 PM
jnraajan: Yes, you are right! That's what I was saying too.
"...If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton ....."
"...If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton ....."
more...
qualified_trash
05-17 01:53 PM
You may try www.shahandkishore.com
My employer uses them and I have had an excellent relationship with them.
My employer uses them and I have had an excellent relationship with them.
2010 ell amp; nikki running scared
walking_dude
12-12 04:12 PM
I'm not surprised if there are Eb2 prior to 2000. Almost every employer substituted every LC they could subsitute just before the deadline to end Substitution. Some estimates put it at 175,000. So I'm not surprised it there are hidden Eb2s who have PDs prior to 2000 !
Of course, none of them will come here and claim it !
Of course, none of them will come here and claim it !
more...
ita
01-16 05:21 PM
They transferred me to the immigration sub committee's office after asking my name and the reason I was calling. I got the sub committee's VM again.
hair ell amp; nikki running scared
dakajo
12-14 09:07 AM
I just received a USCIS automated e-mail indicating an RFE has been issued with regard to my pending I-140 (pending since January 16, 2007, at NSC)...have yet to receive the actual RFE letter. My AP application has been pending since August 1, 2007, also at NSC. Can this RFE delay processing of my AP? I need to travel this month and had also sent a fax to USCIS requesting expediting the I-131. Please let me know what you think, as I am very worried! What could the RFE be in regards to? I work for a university, have a 4 year degree (obtained in the US, along with an MBA), and ability to pay should not be an issue. No experience required!
Thanks!
I-485/I-765 filed July 6, 2007 - EB3
I-765 approved Sept. 11, 2007
I-131 filed Aug. 1 2007 & pending
FP completed Dec. 04, 2007
Thanks!
I-485/I-765 filed July 6, 2007 - EB3
I-765 approved Sept. 11, 2007
I-131 filed Aug. 1 2007 & pending
FP completed Dec. 04, 2007
more...
yestogc
06-11 04:04 PM
Correction it 2 years out of 5 for maintaining PR
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp
hot Re: AZƏRBAYCAN - Azerbaijan
nandakumar
01-18 04:40 PM
I'm the other voter,
Guys, it is the time to show up your support and contribute to this effort.
I only see one vote and that too mine on the attendance poll above.
Don't let anyone take your vote and your voice for granted.
Guys, it is the time to show up your support and contribute to this effort.
I only see one vote and that too mine on the attendance poll above.
Don't let anyone take your vote and your voice for granted.
more...
house ell amp; nikki running scared
pd_recapturing
12-13 02:43 PM
My sincere advice - if u are here currently on a visa then forget about applying for GC..! Complete your education and get ur degree. Then - PACK UR BAGS AND GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY OR just go back home.! This GC is bussiness is honestly not worth it anymore.!! Sorry if i sound frustrated or disheartening but I'm only being practical & realistic.!
I second it. rkat's every word is right. Please do not make your education decision just based on GC EB2 or EB3
I second it. rkat's every word is right. Please do not make your education decision just based on GC EB2 or EB3
tattoo Azerbaijan 2011 || Ell amp; Nikki
gconmymind
03-25 01:26 PM
I remember this bill being brought up last year also and was "supposed" to be passed but never even came up for voting...why do u anticipate this will go through this time? My wife is applying for her "H1B" and she is awaiting the lotto results...
I strongly disapprove of ppl waiting for their GC voicing against H1B cap increase because they have crossed that bridge and have H1B. I am only safely assume such ppl will voice against IV and all IV activities once they receive their GC...
H1B increase is ok, but it will cause further backlog for the new filers because of 7% country limit and very few visa numbers. Business is only interested in H1Bs as it gets them the workforce. A GC makes an employee freer and less valuable to a company????
I strongly disapprove of ppl waiting for their GC voicing against H1B cap increase because they have crossed that bridge and have H1B. I am only safely assume such ppl will voice against IV and all IV activities once they receive their GC...
H1B increase is ok, but it will cause further backlog for the new filers because of 7% country limit and very few visa numbers. Business is only interested in H1Bs as it gets them the workforce. A GC makes an employee freer and less valuable to a company????
more...
pictures Ell/Nikki - Running Scared
newbee7
07-05 12:48 PM
It is mostly be cause they wanted to teach a lesson to DOS for opening the floodgates. Also, backlogs are one key performance indicator for USCIS and is reported to congress. If 100k, plus people apply right away and another 300k in next couple of months, it would look bad on their records.
dresses ell amp; nikki running scared
Libra
08-15 01:26 PM
Thank you nrakkati, i hope your signature and your no. of posts inspire many in this organization.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
Sure...Just contributed $100, will do more in coming months.
more...
makeup ell amp; nikki running scared
subahjaani
08-15 11:46 AM
Instead of opening a new thread, I am posting my question here cause this is related to my attorney mess.
My attorney was telling me that he filed my case with NSC on july 2nd and instead of sending my application with fedex he went in person and filed it in person to be sure. (he filed 211 cases in all). I am asking him for the proof of filing and he is telling that since he handed applications in person, he didn't have any acknowledgment from USCIS.
Today is August 15th and Can I file my case myself today, so that it reaches before Aug. 17th. Basically since I had all papers with me except medical reports. What would happen if my first application is accepted before second application is opened for entry into system.
Any, suggestions.
My attorney was telling me that he filed my case with NSC on july 2nd and instead of sending my application with fedex he went in person and filed it in person to be sure. (he filed 211 cases in all). I am asking him for the proof of filing and he is telling that since he handed applications in person, he didn't have any acknowledgment from USCIS.
Today is August 15th and Can I file my case myself today, so that it reaches before Aug. 17th. Basically since I had all papers with me except medical reports. What would happen if my first application is accepted before second application is opened for entry into system.
Any, suggestions.
girlfriend ell amp; nikki running scared
hebron
08-10 09:55 AM
I am an EB3 applicant with PD of Sep 2004. I have an EAD but I haven't used it yet. I am still on H1-B.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
I have 12 years of experience and a masters degree and given the hopeless EB3 backlog, I have been looking for other suitable employment opportunities (EB2) for the past few weeks.
I have a few questions for the IV members who have switched to new employers and have successfully ported EB3 to EB2:
1. Should I use my EAD and invoke AC21 to transfer to a new employer or should I ask them to file H1-B transfer.
2. How soon is it reasonable to ask the prospective employer to file EB2 labor? I do not want to blow up an opportunity being unreassonable.
In my mind, I am thinking about asking the employer to file for EB2 labor and use my EAD to start working. This is under the assumption that asking an employer to do H1-B transfer and also file EB2 labor might be too much to ask (expense wise) .
Any suggestions/ advice appreciated.
hairstyles Azerbaijan 2011 || Ell amp; Nikki
piyu7444
07-03 01:27 AM
H1B transfer pending & going out of US for 3 days.
My h1b is valid till Sep 30 2008 and this h1b is from my old employer which I left on jun 20. I joined new employer on Jun 23rd and the petition was filed on Jun 16th, it was rcvd by USCIS on Jun 17th.
I am going to Mexico on Jul 4th and will be coming back on Jul 7th. Now if I am not asked to surrender i-94 while I leave USA I think I will be OK but if I had to surrender i-94 while leaving USA then what documents I should have to enter (USA) ???
Should I tell that I have joined new employer or should I not?
My old employer is not going to cancel my currenct h1b PLUS my old employer had filed for an extension also....
I have read that if the petitioner can not provide with proof of h1b transfer in form of rcpt notice or approved i 797 at the POE then he/she is inadmissible.
Please help by throwing out your thoughts/past experience/knowledge base in this area.
Thanks
My h1b is valid till Sep 30 2008 and this h1b is from my old employer which I left on jun 20. I joined new employer on Jun 23rd and the petition was filed on Jun 16th, it was rcvd by USCIS on Jun 17th.
I am going to Mexico on Jul 4th and will be coming back on Jul 7th. Now if I am not asked to surrender i-94 while I leave USA I think I will be OK but if I had to surrender i-94 while leaving USA then what documents I should have to enter (USA) ???
Should I tell that I have joined new employer or should I not?
My old employer is not going to cancel my currenct h1b PLUS my old employer had filed for an extension also....
I have read that if the petitioner can not provide with proof of h1b transfer in form of rcpt notice or approved i 797 at the POE then he/she is inadmissible.
Please help by throwing out your thoughts/past experience/knowledge base in this area.
Thanks
chanduv23
09-14 03:50 PM
Jay Pradhan rockssssssssssss
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
