Tag Archives: investment

McCain’s Economic Plan: Blame Minorities

Fox News’ Neil Cavuto made news of his own this week by suggesting that the credit crisis was caused by loans made to minorities

On Fox’s “Your World” on September 18, Cavuto asked Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), “[W]hen you and many of your colleagues were pushing for more minority lending and more expanded lending to folks who heretofore couldn’t get mortgages, when you were pushing homeownership … Are you totally without culpability here? Are you totally blameless? Are you totally irresponsible of anything that happened?” Cavuto also said, “I’m just saying, I don’t remember a clarion call that said, ‘Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster.’” 
 
This wasn’t the first time that Cavuto blamed loans to minorities for the credit crisis.  In an exchange with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) on September 16, Cavuto said “[Y]ou wanted to encourage minority lending — obviously, a lot of Republicans did as well. There was a lot of — expand lending to those to get a home,” Cavuto then rhetorically asked, “Do you think, intrinsically, it was a mistake, on both parties’ part, to push — to push for homeownership for everybody?”  Unlike Becerra, Hoyer either didn’t understand what Cavuto was saying or simply rolled over. “I think clearly what happened,” Hoyer replied, “ is Fannie and Freddie got caught up in trying to do what the Congress wanted done.”

This is not just a generic attack on minorities.

What is going on here is an attempt by Republicans to deflect public outrage from the credit industry, the investment banks and their Republican deregulators and to place the blame for the crisis credit on the government and the Democrats. 

That’s why John McCain and his Republican apologists have focused their ire on the quasi-governmental institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rather than on the wholly private companies and individuals behind the credit meltdown.

Every time McCain or one of the Republican talking-pointers blasts Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the message is: “These are government institutions, run by Democrats. They caused the credit crisis by pushing the Democratic Party agenda, including homeownership for minorities who could not afford to buy homes and should have been content to be renters. Blame them, not us.”

But are they right?  How big a problem are loans to minorities?  And should any future regulation of the credit and mortgage industry eliminate the mortgages that allowed so many minorities to become homeowners?

The answer is No.

The facts show that there has been tremendous racial disparity in lending is growing, and that the subprime mortgage crisis has disproportionately affected minority borrowers. Banks such as JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Countrywide issued high-cost subprime loans to minorities more than twice as often as to whites and, at some institutions, the number of high-cost subprime loans issued increased even amid a growing credit liquidity crisis.

Citigroup in 2007 made higher-cost subprime loans 2.33 times more frequently to blacks than to whites. During the same period, JP Morgan Chase made higher-cost subprime loans 2.44 times more frequently to blacks and 1.6 times more frequently to Hispanics than to whites. Bank of America extended to blacks higher-cost loans 1.88 times more frequently, and Country Financial extended to blacks higher-cost loans 1.95 times more frequently than to whites. A study released in 2006 found that blacks and Hispanics were often two or three times more likely to receive high-cost subprime mortgages than were white borrowers.

So, yes, minorities were very much more likely to receive high-cost subprime loans than whites. Yet as Robert J. Shiller of Yale University and Austan D. Goolsbee of the University of Chicago have pointed out, although minorities have been hit hard by the subprime bust, the overall affect of the subprime mortgage boom for minorities was mostly positive.

Both Shiller and Goolsbee think that minorities benefited tremendously by financial innovations created by the mortgage and banking industries, and they have cautioned against reacting to the subprime crisis by restricting innovative mortgage practices that allowed minorities greater access to the American Dream of home ownership than ever before.

In testimony before Congress in September 2007, Robert J. Shiller, professor of economics at Yale, author of the bestseller Irrational Exuberance and co-developer of the Case-Shiller National Home Price Index, put the issue in context.  As the news of the study findings hits the media, Shiller’s nuanced Congressional testimony is worth recalling:

“The promotion of homeownership in this country among the poor and disadvantaged, as well as our veterans, has been a worthy cause. The Federal Housing Administration, the Veterans Administration, and Rural Housing Services have helped many people buy homes who otherwise could not afford them. Minorities have particularly benefited.”

“Home ownership promotes a sense of belonging and participation in our country. I strongly believe that these past efforts, which have raised homeownership, have contributed to the feeling of harmony and good will that we treasure in America.”

“But most of the gains in homeownership that we have seen in the last decade are not attributable primarily due to these government institutions. On the plus side, they have been due to financial innovations driven by the private sector. These innovations delivered benefits, including lower mortgage interest rates for U.S. homebuyers, and new institutions to distribute the related credit and collateral risks around the globe.”

The same point was made by University of Chicago economics professor and Barack Obama economic advisor Austan D. Goolsbee in his essay in the New York Times entitled “‘Irresponsible Mortgages’ Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded.”

Goolsbee cautioned against the “very old vein of suspicion against innovations in the mortgage market.”  He cited a study conducted by Kristopher Gerardi and Paul S. Willen from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Harvey S. Rosen of Princeton, “Do Households Benefit from Financial Deregulation and Innovation? The Case of the Mortgage Market,” showing that the three decades from 1970 to 2000 witnessed an incredible flowering of new types of home loans.” “These innovations,” Goolsbee observed, “mainly served to give people power to make their own decisions about housing, and they ended up being quite sensible with their newfound access to capital.”

Goolsbee wrote that these economists “followed thousands of people over their lives and examined the evidence for whether mortgage markets have become more efficient over time. Lost in the current discussion about borrowers’ income levels in the subprime market is the fact that someone with a low income now but who stands to earn much more in the future would, in a perfect market, be able to borrow from a bank to buy a house. That is how economists view the efficiency of a capital market: people’s decisions unrestricted by the amount of money they have right now.”

In regard to racism in mortgage lending, Goolsbee noted that “Since 1995, for example, the number of African-American households has risen by about 20 percent, but the number of African-American homeowners has risen almost twice that rate, by about 35 percent. For Hispanics, the number of households is up about 45 percent and the number of homeowning households is up by almost 70 percent.”

He concluded that “When contemplating ways to prevent excessive mortgages for the 13 percent of subprime borrowers whose loans go sour, regulators must be careful that they do not wreck the ability of the other 87 percent to obtain mortgages.”

In the search for villains in the credit crisis, Congress should be careful not to  eliminate the mortgages that have opened doors for many who have historically been excluded from homeownership and the American Dream.

It is also important to recognize that it was the Bush adminstration that pushed for greater access to homeownership for minorities, and specifically tasked Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with expanding home loans to minorities.

As CNN reported on June 17, 2002:

“President Bush touted his goal Monday of boosting minority home ownership by 5.5 million before the end of the decade through grants to low-income families and credits to developers. ‘Too many American families, too many minorities, do not own a home. There is a home ownership gap in America. The difference between African-American and Hispanic home ownership is too big,” Bush told a crowd at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta. Citing data he used Saturday in his weekly radio address, Bush said that while nearly three-quarters of white Americans own their homes, less than half of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are homeowners. He urged Congress to expand the American Dream Down-Payment Fund, which would provide $200 million in grants over five years to low-income families who are first-time home buyers. The money would be used for down payments, one of the major obstacles to home ownership, Bush said. … Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the federal Home Loan Banks — the government-sponsored corporations that handle home mortgages — will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion, Bush said. Under one of the initiatives launched by Freddie Mac, consumers with poor credit will be able to obtain mortgages with interest rates that automatically decline after a period of consistent payments, he added.”

In the political battle over blame for the credit crisis, Democrats need to be careful both to counter claims that the crisis was caused by loans to minorities and also not to allow conservatives and Republicans to use the crisis as a pretext to scuttle these programs.

Advertisements

Are Our Economic Problems Just in Our Minds? John McCain’s Chief Economic Advisor Thinks So

Are the nation’s economic problems — the financial crisis, the mortgage meltdown, the tidal wave of foreclosures, soaring gas prices, increasing job losses, and a tumbling dollar — only in our minds?

It appears that Phil Gramm, John McCain’s chief economic advisor and co-chair of his presidential campaign, thinks so.

He also thinks that those of us who are seriously troubled by the state of the economy are “whiners.”

In an interview in yesterday’s Washington Times, Gramm said that “this is a mental recession. We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”

Gramm says that Americans have “become a nation of whiners.” 

Americans, according to Gramm, are constantly “complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.”

“You just hear this constant whining,” he said.  “Misery sells newspapers,” Gramm said.  “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”

What also sells newspapers are bone-head comments from key advisors to presidential campaigns.

We said last month that Gramm was on thin ice in the McCain campaign because of his ties to the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis

As a U.S. Senator from Texas, Gramm spearheaded sweeping changes in federal banking law, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which repealed previous rules separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities, and which some analysts blame for creating the legal framework for the current mortgage meltdown and credit crisis.  For that effort, Gramm has been called “the father of the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis.”

In addition, Gramm is currently vice chairman of UBS, the giant Swiss bank that has been a major player in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis.  While advising the McCain campaign, Gramm was paid by UBS to lobby Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

Gramm’s leadership role in UBS — whose stock has fallen 70 percent from last year — also raises questions about his economic, and not just his political, judgment. 

As a recent article in Slate.com observes, “UBS’s investment banking unit made disastrous forays into subprime lending. Last December, having already announced a third-quarter loss, UBS raised about $13 billion to replenish its balance sheets, mostly from the Government of Singapore Investment Corp.  In the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, it racked up Mont Blanc-sized losses on subprime debt of nearly $32 billion. In May, it sold about $15 billion worth of mortgage-related assets to the investment firm BlackRock — but only after it agreed to finance most of the purchase price. In June, UBS raised another $15.5 billion in a rights offering. The credit losses — some $38 billion so far, according to UBS — caused the bank to replace its chairman and install new leadership at its investment bank.”

In addition, Massachusetts has charged UBS with defrauding customers who had purchased auction-rate securities. UBS is accused of “selling retail brokerage customers products that turned out to be profitable for the bank’s investment banking unit but caused the customers to suffer significant losses.”

UBS is also the subject of an ongoing federal investigation, in which Bradley Birkenfeld, an American UBS private banker who was busted on tax evasion charges, has plead guilty and is cooperating. 

UBS has also recently paid millions of dollars to settle a lawsuit with the victims of a 1031 exchange scam.  UBS was one of several defendants who were alleged to have participated with Donald Kay McGahn and and others in a scheme to steal the money that had been entrusted to them to facilitate tax deferred 1031 exchanges.

And most recently, the Financial Times, which called UBS “Europe’s biggest casualty of the US subprime crisis,” reported that UBS’s write-downs could total another $7.5 billion.  UBS’s stock fell 7 percent in trading on Monday.

With that resume, we think it would be best for everyone, not least John McCain, if Phil Gramm was no longer introduced to voters as “John McCain’s chief economic advisor.”

UPDATE:

As of July 18, Gramm has resigned as co-chair of McCain;s presidential campaign.

Foreclosure Activity Up 53% Over June 2007

Default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions were reported on 252,363 U.S. properties during June 2008, a 3 percent decrease from the previous month but still a 53 percent increase from June 2007, according to the latest RealtyTrac Foreclosure Market Report.

The report also shows that one in every 501 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing during the month.

“June was the second straight month with more than a quarter million properties nationwide receiving foreclosure filings,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. “Foreclosure activity slipped 3 percent lower from the previous month, but the year-over-year increase of more than 50 percent indicates we have not yet reached the top of this foreclosure cycle. Bank repossessions, or REOs, continue to increase at a much faster pace than default notices or auction notices. REOs in June were up 171 percent from a year ago, while default notices were up 38 percent and auction notices were up 22 percent over the same time period.”

Nevada, California and Arizona continued to document the three highest state foreclosure rates in June.  Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana and Utah were other states that made the top ten.

For the third month in a row, California and Florida cities accounted for nine out of the top 10 metropolitan foreclosure rates among the 230 metropolitan areas tracked in the report.

RealtyTrac noted that “Foreclosure filings were reported on 8,713 Nevada properties during the month, up nearly 85 percent from June 2007, and one in every 122 Nevada households received a foreclosure filing — more than four times the national average.”

“One in every 192 California properties received a foreclosure filing in June, the nation’s second highest state foreclosure rate and 2.6 times the national average.”

“One in every 201 Arizona properties received a foreclosure filing during the month, the nation’s third highest state foreclosure rate and nearly 2.5 times the national average. Foreclosure filings were reported on 12,950 Arizona properties, down less than 1 percent from the previous month but still up nearly 127 percent from June 2007.”

“Foreclosure filings were reported on 68,666 California properties in June, down nearly 5 percent from the previous month but still up nearly 77 percent from June 2007. California’s total was highest among the states for the 18th consecutive month.”

“Florida continued to register the nation’s second highest foreclosure total, with foreclosure filings reported on 40,351 properties in June — an increase of nearly 8 percent from the previous month and an increase of nearly 92 percent from June 2007. One in every 211 Florida properties received a foreclosure filing during the month, the nation’s fourth highest state foreclosure rate and 2.4 times the national average.”

“Foreclosure filings were reported on 13,194 Ohio properties in June, the nation’s third highest state foreclosure total. Ohio’s foreclosure activity increased 7 percent from the previous month and 11 percent from June 2007. The state’s foreclosure rate ranked No. 6 among the 50 states. Other states in the top 10 for total properties with filings were Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Georgia, Nevada, Illinois and New York.”

“Seven California metro areas were in the top 10, and the top three rates were in California: Stockton, with one in every 72 households receiving a foreclosure filing; Merced, withone in every 77 households receiving a foreclosure filing; and Modesto, with one in every 86 households receiving a foreclosure filing. Other California metro areas in the top 10 were Riverside-San Bernardino at No. 5; Vallejo-Fairfield at No. 7; Bakersfield at No. 8; and Salinas-Monterey at No. 10.”

“The top metro foreclosure rate in Florida was once again posted by Cape Coral-Fort Myers, where one in every 91 households received a foreclosure filing — fourth highest among the nation’s metro foreclosure rates. The foreclosure rate in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., ranked No. 9. LasVegas continued to be the only city outside of California and Florida with a foreclosure rate ranking among the top 10. One in every 99 Las Vegas households received a foreclosure filing in June, more than five times the national average and No. 6 among the metro areas.”

“Metro areas with foreclosure rates among the top 20 included Phoenix at No. 12, Detroit at No. 13, Miami at No. 15 and San Diego at No. 17”

RealtyTrac does not expect foreclosure activity to ease up until 2009.

Real Estate Values Per Square Foot Down More than 20% in Six Major Markets

Real estate prices continue to fall in most markets, according to Radar Logic Incorporated, a real estate data and analytics company that calculates per-square-foot valuations.

Among the key findings of the latest report from Radar Logic:

  • The broad housing slump continued as consumers showed persistent lack of confidence and difficulty in financing home purchases.
  • April 2008 continued to exhibit price per square foot (PPSF) weakness compared to last year in almost all markets. One MSA showed net year-over-year PPSF appreciation, one was neutral, and 23 declined.
  • The Manhattan Condo market showed a 3.6% increase in PPSF year-over-year coupled with an increase in recent transactions despite a modest decline of 0.7% in month-over-month prices.
  • Charlotte’s increase of 1.5% in year-over-year PPSF moved its rank among the 25 MSAs to number 1. This represents an increase over the 0.1% year-over-year PPSF appreciation last month.
  • Columbus showed year-over-year PPSF appreciation of 0.2% for April 2008, which is an increase from last month’s year-over-year decline of 4.3%.
  • New York declined 3.0% year-over-year in April 2008, its second decline in Radar Logic’s published history (beginning in 2000).
  • Sacramento, the lowest-ranking MSA, showed a 31.7% decline from April 2007, which is consistent with last month’s decline of 30.6%.

 The ten biggest declines in per-square-foot values from last year were in these markets:

Sacramento (-31.7%)

Las Vegas (-29.9%),

San Diego (-28.1%)

Phoenix (-25.6%).

Los Angeles/Orange County (-23.4%).

Miami (-22.4%).

St. Louis (-19.8%).

San Francisco (-19.7%).

Tampa (-16.6%).

Detroit (-16.1%).

You can read the full Radar Logic report here.

Major Law Firm Creates “Distressed Real Estate” Section as Crisis Deepens

In what could be a new and significant trend in American legal practice — and a sign that the real estate crisis is expanding — the prestigious Philadelphia-based law firm Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP has announced that it is establishing a “distressed real estate” section. 

The firm’s “Distressed Real Estate Initiative” will involve at least 16 core lawyers in ten offices throughout the country, including those in Mid-Atlantic and Western locations hardest hit by the housing bust and the mortgage crisis, including Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

The purpose of the section, according to the firm, will be “to provide representation in acquisition, restructuring and bankruptcy matters.”

 “In this period of turmoil in the financial markets and economic uncertainty, new real estate opportunities and challenges present themselves,” said Michael Sklaroff, chair of Ballard’s Real Estate Department. “We stand ready to serve clients with respect to existing positions and also in assisting them in acquisitions and debt and equity investments in troubled projects.”

Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll was founded in 1886 and now employs more than 550 lawyers in twelve offices located throughout the mid-Atlantic corridor and the western United States.

When there is blood in the water, the sharks will appear.

What Property Qualifies for a 1031 Exchange? (Part Three)

This is Part Three of our series on what property qualifies for a 1031 exchange.  You can also see Part One and Part Two.

In deciding whether a particular property has been held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment, the IRS looks at how you have characterized that property on your tax returns. If you have historically taken depreciation on or reported rental income on a property, there should not be any problem with that property qualifying for a Section 1031 exchange.

In addition, it is important to note that the IRS has ruled that the Section 1031 requirement that property be “held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment” excludes primary residences, vacation homes (when they are not held for investment), and second homes. When a personal residence is exchanged for other property, the Section 121 exclusion rule applies (providing that up to $250,000 of capital gain, or up to $500,000 for a married couple, is not taxable), not Section 1031.

The burden of establishing that a property is held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment (and not for a non-qualifying use such as inventory for resale) is on the exchanger, not the government.

The “for investment” requirement is somewhat trickier than the requirement that the property be “held for productive use in a trade or business,” since all property could conceivably be considered an investment.

Each property must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. What the IRS looks at is the intent of the property owner and whether, on balance, the property is held for investment purposes or personal enjoyment.

If you want to do a Section 1031 exchange of property that you now use as your primary residence or as a second or vacation home, you must first turn it into qualifying property that is productively used in a trade or business or for investment. In other words, even property you have used as a primary residence, a second home, or primarily for personal enjoyment as a vacation home, may still qualify for an exchange under Section 1031 – if you re-characterize that property by using it for business purposes for a sufficient period of time.

The date the IRS uses to determine whether property has been held for a qualifying business use is the date of the transaction; any previous use is theoretically irrelevant. There is also no clear rule regarding how long a “holding period” is required in order to re characterize property and qualify for a Section 1031 exchange. Tax advisors recommend a period of one to two years (opinion is split on which time period is sufficient, but in no case less than 12 months) in the new use, and that you are able to report rental income and deduct depreciation and other business expenses regarding the property on your tax returns for that period of time.

It should also be noted that one can also exchange many types of non-real estate property that is held for investment or used in a business. For example, an airline can sell its airplanes as part of a like-kind exchange and avoid recapture of depreciation.

But the “like-kind” requirement is interpreted much more narrowly by the IRS for non-real property than for real property. While any real property held for trade or business use or for investment and located in the United States can be exchanged for any other real property held for trade or business use or for investment use and located in the United States, non-real estate properties exchanged under Section 1031 must be essentially the same type of asset.

Airplanes can be exchanged for airplanes, trucks for trucks, pizza ovens for pizza ovens, oil digging equipment for oil digging equipment; but airplanes cannot be exchanged for trucks, and oil digging equipment cannot be exchanged for pizza ovens. In addition, franchise rights and certain types of licenses can also be exchanged under Section 1031.

The replacement property, like the relinquished property, must meet certain requirements to be eligible for a Section 1031 exchange.

First, the replacement property, like the relinquished property, must be property, not securities or services, and it must be intended for “productive use in a trade or business or for investment.” 

Section 1031 applies only to “the exchange of property…for property.” For this reason, you cannot exchange property for securities or services. As with the relinquished property, this is a matter of the how the exchanger intends to use the property. The use of either property by the other party in the exchange is irrelevant.

Second, the replacement property must be of a “like-kind” to the relinquished property. What does “like-kind” property mean? In a typically obtuse ruling, the IRS has stated that:

“As used in IRC 1031(a), the words like-kind has reference to the nature or character of the property and not to its grade or quality. One kind or class of property may not, under that section, be exchanged for property of a different kind or class. The fact that any real estate involved is improved or unimproved is not material, for that fact relates only to the grade or quality of the property and not to its kind or class. Unproductive real estate held by one other than a dealer for future use or future realization of the increment in value is held for investment and not primarily for sale.”

Got it? Okay, now let’s unpack the “like-kind” requirement in language that makes sense.

As used in Section 1031, “like-kind” property does not mean property that is exactly alike – or even alike at all in any normal sense. Instead, the IRS interprets the “like-kind” requirement very broadly – so broadly that if two or more properties are located in the United States and are held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment, they are considered “like-kind” property under Section 1031.

In other words, all real property located in the United States is considered “like-kind” to all other real property located in the United States.

Conversely, foreign property such as property located in Canada or Mexico) or in overseas U.S. possessions, such as Guam or Puerto Rico, is not considered “like-kind” to any property located in the United States.

But urban real estate in Los Angeles can be exchanged for a ranch in Utah, a ranch in Utah can be exchanged for a factory in Delaware, a factory in Delaware can be exchanged for a gas station in Las Vegas, and a gas station in Las Vegas can be exchanged for a conservation easement in Seattle. The quality or type of the real property does not matter so long as each real property is located in the United States. Under Section 1031, an apartment building in Chicago can be exchanged for an office building in Los Angeles, an office building in New York can be exchanged for a car wash in Nashville, a car wash in Seattle can be exchanged for a tenancy-in-common ownership in a resort in San Diego, and a tenancy-in-common ownership in a mall in Arizona can be exchanged fortimberland in Oregon, a farm in Wisconsin, a factory in Pennsylvania, or a gas station in Louisiana.

The fact that one property is improved and the other property is unimproved, or that one property is in a run-down part of a city while the other property is located in an upscale neighborhood is irrelevant.  Moreover, even partially completed property can, if properly identified, qualify as “like-kind” property with completed property. The “like-kind” requirement refers to the nature or character of property, not to its grade or quality. As long as a property is located in the United States and is “held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment,” it is “like-kind” to every other property located in the United States that is “held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment.”

See also “What Property Qualifies for a 1031 Exchange?” Part One and Part Two.

To contact Melissa J. Fox for 1031 exchange or other real estate or legal services, send an email to strategicfox@gmail.com

Proof We’re in a Recession

Here’s proof that we’re in a recession: Starbucks is closing 600 stores.

According to the New York Times, “Starbucks said Tuesday that it planned to close another 500 underperforming stores and eliminate as many as 12,000 full- and part-time positions. The company, which now plans to close a total of 600 underperforming stores, will take related charges totaling more than $325 million. Most of the stores, which are company owned, will be closed by the end of the first half of its fiscal year, which ends September 2009, the company said. Starbucks estimated that total pretax charges associated with the closures, including costs associated with severance, would be $328 million to $348 million. The nation’s largest coffee chain said 70 percent of the stores targeted for closure have been open since the beginning of fiscal 2006. The job losses would represent about 7 percent of the company’s global work force.”

These closings are clearly fallout from the housing bust.  As the Times noted, Starbucks had “aggressively opened stores in areas like California and Florida, which have been hardest hit by the housing downturn. ”

The next time economists get together to discuss whether we’re really in a recession, they may have to meet somewhere other than the local Starbucks. 

It might be closed.