Mass. Court’s Ruling Could Be a Harbinger of More Foreclosure Hold Ups
January 7, 2011 by Brian Summerfield
By Brian Summerfield, Online Editor, REALTOR® Magazine
A decision this afternoon from the Massachusetts Supreme Court could have huge implications for future foreclosures. In a unanimous decision, the jurists rejected Wells Fargo and US Bancorp’s attempted seizure of two homes due to a lack of proper documentation.
Justice Robert Cordy said the “utter carelessness” in producing paperwork that would prove the banks owned the properties prompted the court’s ruling. Although the verdict only affects foreclosures in that state, it could influence the decisions of courts in several other states as they review similar cases. Additionally, attorneys general in all 50 states have previously expressed that they would look into whether financial institutions are erroneously foreclosing on home owners.
This ruling comes amid a recent spate of embarrassing, wrongful foreclosures and concerns about title complications caused by the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). We will bring you the latest developments in this story as they come in. Stay tuned!
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Housing Starts Predicted to Hit 3-Year High
Housing starts will probably reach a three-year high of 739,000 in 2011, creating about 500,000 jobs and helping trim the unemployment rate to 9.1 percent, said David Crowe, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, in an interview with Bloomberg.
“This is an ugly economic cycle,” he said. “We need job creation to get people comfortable with buying a home. If they do that, we’ll create jobs that will reinforce that home buying and fuel additional job growth.”
Job growth in other sectors, as well as population growth, will also likely have an effect. The number of U.S. households will rise 0.7 percent to 118.7 million in 2011, the largest annual gain since the beginning of the housing crisis in 2007.
Charles Lieberman, chief investment officer at Advisors Capital Management LLC in Hasbrouck Heights, N.J., expects jobs to rise by an average of 200,000 per month in 2011.
The CEO of luxury home builder Toll Brothers is optimistic. “The recovery is here to stay,” said Douglas Yearley. “I think 2011 will be an improving year, but I think 2012 will be a big year for us.”
Source: Bloomberg, Joshua Zumbrun and Kathleen M. Howley (12/28/2010)
Housing starts will probably reach a three-year high of 739,000 in 2011, creating about 500,000 jobs and helping trim the unemployment rate to 9.1 percent, said David Crowe, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, in an interview with Bloomberg.
“This is an ugly economic cycle,” he said. “We need job creation to get people comfortable with buying a home. If they do that, we’ll create jobs that will reinforce that home buying and fuel additional job growth.”
Job growth in other sectors, as well as population growth, will also likely have an effect. The number of U.S. households will rise 0.7 percent to 118.7 million in 2011, the largest annual gain since the beginning of the housing crisis in 2007.
Charles Lieberman, chief investment officer at Advisors Capital Management LLC in Hasbrouck Heights, N.J., expects jobs to rise by an average of 200,000 per month in 2011.
The CEO of luxury home builder Toll Brothers is optimistic. “The recovery is here to stay,” said Douglas Yearley. “I think 2011 will be an improving year, but I think 2012 will be a big year for us.”
Source: Bloomberg, Joshua Zumbrun and Kathleen M. Howley (12/28/2010)
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Battle of the Bank Buybacks - Part II
Published on Monday, December 6, 2010, 12:47 PM Last Update: 2 week(s) ago by Preston Howard
In one of my previous articles, I shared how the Federal mortgage alphabet soup entities (FHFA/FNMA/FHLMC/FHA) were starting to exercise the buyback/repurchase provisions which are built into their agreements with various banks, brokers, and “direct lenders” to recoup some of the massive losses associated with the loans they’ve purchased.
Now, the ante has been upped significantly because even though Bank of America has dug in its heels and retained the best counsel that money can buy to engage in “day-to-day, hand-to-hand combat” as described by their CEO, to fight each and every repurchase request, the Federal mortgage agencies and other mortgage pool investors are fighting back with their own army of super sleuths.
Former bank quality control officers, auditors and analysts across the country and in various business parks across the Bible belt are actively engaged in the “loan detective” industry. Scores of these former bank employees are literally pouring over thousands of pages of mortgage documents scouring for fraud, misrepresentations, and violations of bank underwriting policies in their attempt to give the Feds (and investors) the upper hand in their battle against financial institutions for the ownership of non-performing loan pools. Ironically, in many cases, the firms that function in the role of loan detective against the financial institutions were the same ones that performed quality control (QC) for the banks when the loan pools were first originated (a clear case of biting the hand that once fed you if I ever saw one).
As you can imagine, the stakes are quite high as bank losses from repurchases could exceed $90 billion. Given that the repurchase losses are related to a Non Interest Expense (NIE), the financial repercussions would go straight to the bank’s bottom line and onto the company’s stock price. Accordingly, the banks are vehemently fighting every last repurchase request. In many cases, because the banks have such deep pockets, and can pay for the services of the best attorneys, they can afford to drag out negotiations and lawsuits on repurchase requests. These stall tactics are quite effective, as in many instances repurchase requests do not lead to recoveries for the Feds and/or loan investors, as such, many of them choose not to pursue their legal remedies.
However, for those agencies and investors who are now willing and able to fight back, the reward can be huge. In many instances, the bank can be required to pay the difference between the original loan amount and the amount that the Fed/investors received through the process of foreclosure. Considering that many of these loans were underwritten based on values that were exorbitantly high, but foreclosed on at record lows, the spreads will be large, and so will the banks’ losses. With potential profits in the billions for uncovering fraud and other misrepresentations, loan detective agencies are in great demand right now, and the loan file “autopsies” are mounting.
For example, one former auditor turned loan detective has sifted through credit reports, title records, Google maps, and phone listings looking for the smallest pieces of evidence that a borrower lied to obtain a loan. This mortgage sleuth has uncovered investment properties that should have been primary residence loans, sales managers stating $250,000 in earnings that are actually $47,000, undisclosed properties that weren’t on the loan application, and other discrepancies to present a solid case for fraud. The firm that she works for has been successful in obtaining repurchases for 65% of its clientele, with recoveries in excess of $140 million. For some detective firms, a flat fee is earned; for others, a fee plus a percentage of the recovery is the reward. Accordingly, many detectives are extremely aggressive and hungry to find and substantiate mortgage fraud.
Therefore, depending on who you are and how you examine it, this twist in the buyback debacle can be a boon or a bust. As taxpayers, we are rooting for the Federal agencies to obtain buybacks as it translates into money flowing back into our Treasury’s pockets. This action also provides more liquidity for Fannie, Freddie and the FHA and we will not have to prop up and provide backstops for these agencies as initially thought. However, as users of mortgage capital, when the buybacks mount and the banks incur more losses, their appetite for risk decreases; subsequently, they are more likely to become disinterested in lending money on mortgages due to potential fraud and looming repurchases. This is further complicated by the fact that although Fannie/Freddie/FHA purchase and securitize the loans for sale in the secondary market, it is the banks, brokers, and direct lenders who are the institutions that originate them. To date, no one that I know has ever applied for a home loan directly with Fannie Mae (and the FHA doesn’t buy mortgages at all. It only guarantees the loans that the banks underwrite).
As such, when you sit back and consider how mortgages are currently originated and sold, either way we win and lose. If the Feds enforce more buybacks, banks incur greater losses; subsequently, they have less capital to deploy for new loans; and if loans are deployed by the banks, they are more expensive than they previously were (either through fees or rates). Conversely, if the banks win, the Feds eat the losses, and the only way to recoup the losses is through higher taxes. So in the end, I see yet another opportunity for reform!
Preston Howard is a mortgage broker and Principal of Rose City Realty, Inc. in Pasadena, CA. Specializing in various facets of real estate finance, he can be reached at howardpr@rosecityrealtyinc.com.
Published on Monday, December 6, 2010, 12:47 PM Last Update: 2 week(s) ago by Preston Howard
In one of my previous articles, I shared how the Federal mortgage alphabet soup entities (FHFA/FNMA/FHLMC/FHA) were starting to exercise the buyback/repurchase provisions which are built into their agreements with various banks, brokers, and “direct lenders” to recoup some of the massive losses associated with the loans they’ve purchased.
Now, the ante has been upped significantly because even though Bank of America has dug in its heels and retained the best counsel that money can buy to engage in “day-to-day, hand-to-hand combat” as described by their CEO, to fight each and every repurchase request, the Federal mortgage agencies and other mortgage pool investors are fighting back with their own army of super sleuths.
Former bank quality control officers, auditors and analysts across the country and in various business parks across the Bible belt are actively engaged in the “loan detective” industry. Scores of these former bank employees are literally pouring over thousands of pages of mortgage documents scouring for fraud, misrepresentations, and violations of bank underwriting policies in their attempt to give the Feds (and investors) the upper hand in their battle against financial institutions for the ownership of non-performing loan pools. Ironically, in many cases, the firms that function in the role of loan detective against the financial institutions were the same ones that performed quality control (QC) for the banks when the loan pools were first originated (a clear case of biting the hand that once fed you if I ever saw one).
As you can imagine, the stakes are quite high as bank losses from repurchases could exceed $90 billion. Given that the repurchase losses are related to a Non Interest Expense (NIE), the financial repercussions would go straight to the bank’s bottom line and onto the company’s stock price. Accordingly, the banks are vehemently fighting every last repurchase request. In many cases, because the banks have such deep pockets, and can pay for the services of the best attorneys, they can afford to drag out negotiations and lawsuits on repurchase requests. These stall tactics are quite effective, as in many instances repurchase requests do not lead to recoveries for the Feds and/or loan investors, as such, many of them choose not to pursue their legal remedies.
However, for those agencies and investors who are now willing and able to fight back, the reward can be huge. In many instances, the bank can be required to pay the difference between the original loan amount and the amount that the Fed/investors received through the process of foreclosure. Considering that many of these loans were underwritten based on values that were exorbitantly high, but foreclosed on at record lows, the spreads will be large, and so will the banks’ losses. With potential profits in the billions for uncovering fraud and other misrepresentations, loan detective agencies are in great demand right now, and the loan file “autopsies” are mounting.
For example, one former auditor turned loan detective has sifted through credit reports, title records, Google maps, and phone listings looking for the smallest pieces of evidence that a borrower lied to obtain a loan. This mortgage sleuth has uncovered investment properties that should have been primary residence loans, sales managers stating $250,000 in earnings that are actually $47,000, undisclosed properties that weren’t on the loan application, and other discrepancies to present a solid case for fraud. The firm that she works for has been successful in obtaining repurchases for 65% of its clientele, with recoveries in excess of $140 million. For some detective firms, a flat fee is earned; for others, a fee plus a percentage of the recovery is the reward. Accordingly, many detectives are extremely aggressive and hungry to find and substantiate mortgage fraud.
Therefore, depending on who you are and how you examine it, this twist in the buyback debacle can be a boon or a bust. As taxpayers, we are rooting for the Federal agencies to obtain buybacks as it translates into money flowing back into our Treasury’s pockets. This action also provides more liquidity for Fannie, Freddie and the FHA and we will not have to prop up and provide backstops for these agencies as initially thought. However, as users of mortgage capital, when the buybacks mount and the banks incur more losses, their appetite for risk decreases; subsequently, they are more likely to become disinterested in lending money on mortgages due to potential fraud and looming repurchases. This is further complicated by the fact that although Fannie/Freddie/FHA purchase and securitize the loans for sale in the secondary market, it is the banks, brokers, and direct lenders who are the institutions that originate them. To date, no one that I know has ever applied for a home loan directly with Fannie Mae (and the FHA doesn’t buy mortgages at all. It only guarantees the loans that the banks underwrite).
As such, when you sit back and consider how mortgages are currently originated and sold, either way we win and lose. If the Feds enforce more buybacks, banks incur greater losses; subsequently, they have less capital to deploy for new loans; and if loans are deployed by the banks, they are more expensive than they previously were (either through fees or rates). Conversely, if the banks win, the Feds eat the losses, and the only way to recoup the losses is through higher taxes. So in the end, I see yet another opportunity for reform!
Preston Howard is a mortgage broker and Principal of Rose City Realty, Inc. in Pasadena, CA. Specializing in various facets of real estate finance, he can be reached at howardpr@rosecityrealtyinc.com.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is starting to get really serious about all of the mortgage delinquencies which are taking place across the country.
For those of you who may have never heard of the FHFA before, it is the Federal entity which oversees and regulates the mortgage behemoths known as Fannie Mae (add acronym) and Freddie Mac. The tally for delinquent mortgages is rising by the millions and FHFA is looking to offload its losses onto the financial institutions that sold them to Fannie and Freddie. Now, they have enlisted the services of some high powered attorneys to assist with the process.
For example, FHFA recently retained the firm of Quinn Emanuel (QE) to jump start its investigations. Using its expertise in business and banking litigations, QE has already subpoenaed JP Morgan Chase and has put Bank of America on notice for $47 billion dollars in poorly serviced loans. This investigation is broad ranging, as the FHFA is not solely pursuing institutions that sold mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also private label financiers who eventually packaged and sold mortgage backed securities to investors on Wall Street. As it stands today, banks and mortgage companies could be forced to buyback over $179 billion in soured mortgage products. To date, Fannie and Freddie have forced banks to repurchase over $6 billion in mortgages, and an additional $16 billion will be forced back on the banks in the next 12 months. During the boom years of 2006 and 2007, Fannie/Freddie purchased over $200 billion in subprime loans, of which the majority have gone sour. The FHFA is seeking to force repurchases on these mortgages too.
As one could assume, the banks don´t want to buy back any mortgages. Accordingly, they are pushing back on FHFA/FHMLC/FNMA´s buyback requests with fervor. Bank of America´s chief has gone on record stating that "we will diligently fight this." Others have retained the best attorneys that money can buy to defend them tooth and nail. The unfortunate issue is that many of the buyback requests are legitimate. As a whole, the majority of these banks signed representations and warranties affirming that if any fraudulent documentation or faulty underwriting can be found in their files, the bank agrees to buy the loans back. Banks look forward to earning NII (net interest income) and not losing due to NIE (net interest expense). As repurchases mount, banks have to raise their loan loss provision, which accordingly drives down their stock price. This also leads to a need for additional capital. If the capital can´t be raised, a bank can fold.
Indeed, the scariest part is how buybacks travel through the mortgage food chain. Just as many banks signed repurchase agreements with representations and warranties regarding the buyback of loans with fraudulent documentation, mortgage brokers, bankers and other forms of �direct lenders´ signed them as well. Accordingly, if Bank of America, Chase, Wells, or Citi is forced to buyback mortgages, they may seek their own remedies by forcing buybacks onto mortgage brokers, banks and direct lenders who originated the loans. I haven´t personally experienced this myself, but I know mortgage brokers who were forced to buyback mortgages or go bankrupt. I don´t know many people with an average of $350,000 lying around (per loan) to reimburse a lender.
As this mortgage mess continues to snowball, I see the buyback issue getting bigger while sucking in more people involved in the mortgage origination process. Ultimately, it may take us years to recover as Fannie and Freddie struggle to repay the American taxpayer the $148 billion that was borrowed to keep both entities afloat by pushing bad loans back down on the banks that originated them in the first place. As the loss provisions rise and the stock prices fall, more banks will push their junk onto mortgage bankers, brokers, and other direct lenders by enforcing their own representations and warranties. The smallest of these guys will file BK, Fannie and Freddie will continue to be propped up on the back of the tax payer, while banks will suffer losses and in many cases closes their doors. Oh, what a mess one weaves when they originate a fraudulent loan in order to deceive!
By Howard Preston, contributor to Broker Agent Social.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Tax ramifications of a short sale
This makes me crazy. A homeowner is in trouble, yet wants to do the right thing and attempt a short sale rather than just walk away. So what does the IRS do? Possibly count the amount forgiven as income. Aaaaargh! If the homowner just lets the lender foreclose then the IRS isn't interested. What is wrong with this picture?
by Dave Cherry - Dec. 26, 2010 06:10 PM
Question: My daughter executed a "short sale" of her home in 2010. What are the tax ramifications?
- Barry Davis, Apache Junction
Answer: In a "short sale," the IRS would most likely consider the difference between what the house sold for and what she owed on it as income to her in 2010. This applies when the lender forgives the debt entirely and gives up any further rights to collect it. In this case, the lender would most likely send her a 1099-C showing the difference as income, and your daughter could owe tax on it. Your daughter should check IRS form #982 to see if she qualifies for one of the many exemptions available. If she does qualify, the difference may not be considered income. Conversely, in a foreclosure the difference is most often not considered income to the homeowner.Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2010/12/26/20101226tax-cherry1227.html#ixzz19KWc6Xxo
by Dave Cherry - Dec. 26, 2010 06:10 PM
Question: My daughter executed a "short sale" of her home in 2010. What are the tax ramifications?
- Barry Davis, Apache Junction
Answer: In a "short sale," the IRS would most likely consider the difference between what the house sold for and what she owed on it as income to her in 2010. This applies when the lender forgives the debt entirely and gives up any further rights to collect it. In this case, the lender would most likely send her a 1099-C showing the difference as income, and your daughter could owe tax on it. Your daughter should check IRS form #982 to see if she qualifies for one of the many exemptions available. If she does qualify, the difference may not be considered income. Conversely, in a foreclosure the difference is most often not considered income to the homeowner.Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2010/12/26/20101226tax-cherry1227.html#ixzz19KWc6Xxo
Friday, December 24, 2010
Christmas musings, Christmas
I sat down to write my usual “Christmas Cheer” Bits and Pieces. I quickly became suspicious that it was turning out to be a clone of my “Thanksgiving Blessings” piece last month.
I can’t do it. Let’s be honest – I’m not a big fan of Christmas. As a child growing up in an alcoholic/workaholic family, Christmas was always (at the very least) disappointing, and often it was just plain awful. One year I mounted a focused campaign for a bride doll. For some strange reason I wanted this doll that I had seen in the Sears catalog desperately. Yes, she showed up under the tree all right, with my sister’s name on her tag. Parents with too much to drink and a child asking for an anomaly of a gift led to a mistake. It has not been forgotten.
Then, on December 15th, when I was 19, a tragedy in my family happened. That event led directly to an even bigger tragedy on Christmas Eve. I’m not prepared to talk about the particulars, but there I was looking at the Christmas tree and listening to the Christmas Carols feeling my heart break and wishing that I could die, too.
Time marches on. I was a single Mom with 2 boys, frantically compensating for the fact that given a choice I would have just ignored the whole accursed thing. I would happily have gone to China or India, where I suspect they don’t sing many Christmas Carols. Since I couldn’t do that I went full-bore and rampant with the commercialism of Christmas. I spent way too much money on way too much stuff, pretending that I didn’t want to scream most of the time.
Fortunately I came out of the “Happy Holidays!” closet years ago and admitted to the world that I don’t like Christmas very much. I was amazed at how many like-minded people are out there. (I know a guy who became a Jehovah’s Witness solely to get away from Christmas.) Some people embraced me like a long-lost sister, while others look at me like I suddenly sprouted a leg out of the side of my head. “How can you hate Christmas? Why, there’s lights and Carols and poinsettias and gifts and unicorns and sparkleys and Santa Claus! Comfort and happy happy happy joy joy joy! What’s wrong with you, you horrible Grinchy Scrooge, you?”
That’s OK – as Popeye would say, I yam what I yam and I’m hard-wired to look at the weeks between Thanksgiving and New Year’s with narrowed eyes.
And now here we are, December 2010. I’ve gotten better – I don’t break out in hives anymore when I’m forced to be in the same place as a Christmas Carol. I don’t flinch (as much) when I suspect that I’m about to be inflicted with a Santa Claus.
I’ve found things about this season that I can get behind. I adore the concept of “Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards All” – that’s a good one. The lights are pretty. I’ve made peace with the tree. I like presents, and I give them because it’s fun to give and not because I have anything to prove. I like the feast and I love the family gathering. I like observing people that are actually enjoying this whole Yuletide thing, sort of the same way that I would watch an alien from another planet that I don’t really understand but find to be intriguing. I like to see that even the grouchiest among us try to be a little nicer, and I hope that this new attitude of theirs will last past December 25th. Hey, why stop now?
It occurs to me that I am not such an oddity in the global sense - most religions don’t much get into Jesus’ Birthday. So however you feel about the season and whatever your declared religion, find a place in your heart for some holiday spirit.
If you love the season, congratulations! I envy you. If you find it to be a chore, that’s OK. If you celebrate Hanukkah as opposed to Jesus’ Birthday, L’Chaim! If Kwanzaa is your thing, Umoha! If you celebrate the Hopi Soya Luna or the Winter Solstice, Cheers! The point is that whatever your personal reason for the season, remember the spirit of the season. Decide what matters most and keep it safely in the front of your mind.
I believe that the great leaders of all religions taught the same thing: Be nice. Be good. Do your best. Keep your priorities straight. Love another. Take care of the weak and feed the hungry. Do the right thing. We are all brothers and sisters, and what hurts one of us hurts all of us. Respect the Earth. At its best, Christmas embodies these concepts and gives us a season for embracing them.
Now, at THAT I can rejoice!
Happy Holidays!
I can’t do it. Let’s be honest – I’m not a big fan of Christmas. As a child growing up in an alcoholic/workaholic family, Christmas was always (at the very least) disappointing, and often it was just plain awful. One year I mounted a focused campaign for a bride doll. For some strange reason I wanted this doll that I had seen in the Sears catalog desperately. Yes, she showed up under the tree all right, with my sister’s name on her tag. Parents with too much to drink and a child asking for an anomaly of a gift led to a mistake. It has not been forgotten.
Then, on December 15th, when I was 19, a tragedy in my family happened. That event led directly to an even bigger tragedy on Christmas Eve. I’m not prepared to talk about the particulars, but there I was looking at the Christmas tree and listening to the Christmas Carols feeling my heart break and wishing that I could die, too.
Time marches on. I was a single Mom with 2 boys, frantically compensating for the fact that given a choice I would have just ignored the whole accursed thing. I would happily have gone to China or India, where I suspect they don’t sing many Christmas Carols. Since I couldn’t do that I went full-bore and rampant with the commercialism of Christmas. I spent way too much money on way too much stuff, pretending that I didn’t want to scream most of the time.
Fortunately I came out of the “Happy Holidays!” closet years ago and admitted to the world that I don’t like Christmas very much. I was amazed at how many like-minded people are out there. (I know a guy who became a Jehovah’s Witness solely to get away from Christmas.) Some people embraced me like a long-lost sister, while others look at me like I suddenly sprouted a leg out of the side of my head. “How can you hate Christmas? Why, there’s lights and Carols and poinsettias and gifts and unicorns and sparkleys and Santa Claus! Comfort and happy happy happy joy joy joy! What’s wrong with you, you horrible Grinchy Scrooge, you?”
That’s OK – as Popeye would say, I yam what I yam and I’m hard-wired to look at the weeks between Thanksgiving and New Year’s with narrowed eyes.
And now here we are, December 2010. I’ve gotten better – I don’t break out in hives anymore when I’m forced to be in the same place as a Christmas Carol. I don’t flinch (as much) when I suspect that I’m about to be inflicted with a Santa Claus.
I’ve found things about this season that I can get behind. I adore the concept of “Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards All” – that’s a good one. The lights are pretty. I’ve made peace with the tree. I like presents, and I give them because it’s fun to give and not because I have anything to prove. I like the feast and I love the family gathering. I like observing people that are actually enjoying this whole Yuletide thing, sort of the same way that I would watch an alien from another planet that I don’t really understand but find to be intriguing. I like to see that even the grouchiest among us try to be a little nicer, and I hope that this new attitude of theirs will last past December 25th. Hey, why stop now?
It occurs to me that I am not such an oddity in the global sense - most religions don’t much get into Jesus’ Birthday. So however you feel about the season and whatever your declared religion, find a place in your heart for some holiday spirit.
If you love the season, congratulations! I envy you. If you find it to be a chore, that’s OK. If you celebrate Hanukkah as opposed to Jesus’ Birthday, L’Chaim! If Kwanzaa is your thing, Umoha! If you celebrate the Hopi Soya Luna or the Winter Solstice, Cheers! The point is that whatever your personal reason for the season, remember the spirit of the season. Decide what matters most and keep it safely in the front of your mind.
I believe that the great leaders of all religions taught the same thing: Be nice. Be good. Do your best. Keep your priorities straight. Love another. Take care of the weak and feed the hungry. Do the right thing. We are all brothers and sisters, and what hurts one of us hurts all of us. Respect the Earth. At its best, Christmas embodies these concepts and gives us a season for embracing them.
Now, at THAT I can rejoice!
Happy Holidays!
Monday, December 20, 2010
total eclipse of the moon
If rain, clouds or fog don't obscure the midnight sky Monday night, a dramatic total eclipse of the moon will be well worth staying up late to watch - in the Bay Area and across the nation.
Lunar eclipses are by no means uncommon, but during this one the moon will be high in the sky, so it should be easily observable from everywhere, said Andrew Fraknoi, chairman of astronomy at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills.
"It's a really democratic event," he said, "because you don't need an expensive telescope or any other sophisticated equipment to enjoy the spectacle - just your eyes or, if you like, a pair of binoculars."
The moon is always full during an eclipse, and for astronomers, this one actually starts at 9:55 p.m. Monday, when the full moon enters the pale outer fringe of Earth's shadow, called the penumbra. The dimming, though, will be so faint it can't be observed by ordinary folk.
By 10:33 p.m., the moon's edge will move into the inner shadow of Earth, called the umbra, and during that time of partial eclipse, watchers will see Earth's shadow creeping slowly across the bright lunar surface. By looking closely, it's apparent that the edge of the shadow is actually curved, which to ancient Greek observers proved that Earth is indeed round.
At 11:41 p.m., the lunar eclipse will be total as the moon will have moved entirely inside the Earth's shadow. That sight can be spectacular: refraction of the sun's light by the Earth's atmosphere will color the moon's surface unpredictably, and during past eclipses it has appeared a deep bronze or blood red or even a dark yellow.
Totality ends at 12:53 a.m. Tuesday, and the last of the partial eclipse finishes at 2:01 a.m.
Two Bay Area institutions have announced public events for the eclipse.
The Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland will be open from 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. for its Midnight Delight, rain or shine. If the sky is clear, visitors can watch the eclipse from the observatory's deck and through its major telescopes. A simulated eclipse will be shown in the Chabot planetarium, and astronomers will explain the event to visitors.
The Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley will be open from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. and will also offer a planetarium show, telescope viewing and explanations by astronomers and veteran eclipse enthusiasts.
On the Internet
Helpful NASA video of the total lunar eclipse, along with animations and more information about the moon and the night sky, can be found at shadowandsubstance.com.
E-mail David Perlman at dperlman@sfchronicle.com. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/18/BAJ31GSALU.DTL#ixzz18fT57LJH
Lunar eclipses are by no means uncommon, but during this one the moon will be high in the sky, so it should be easily observable from everywhere, said Andrew Fraknoi, chairman of astronomy at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills.
"It's a really democratic event," he said, "because you don't need an expensive telescope or any other sophisticated equipment to enjoy the spectacle - just your eyes or, if you like, a pair of binoculars."
The moon is always full during an eclipse, and for astronomers, this one actually starts at 9:55 p.m. Monday, when the full moon enters the pale outer fringe of Earth's shadow, called the penumbra. The dimming, though, will be so faint it can't be observed by ordinary folk.
By 10:33 p.m., the moon's edge will move into the inner shadow of Earth, called the umbra, and during that time of partial eclipse, watchers will see Earth's shadow creeping slowly across the bright lunar surface. By looking closely, it's apparent that the edge of the shadow is actually curved, which to ancient Greek observers proved that Earth is indeed round.
At 11:41 p.m., the lunar eclipse will be total as the moon will have moved entirely inside the Earth's shadow. That sight can be spectacular: refraction of the sun's light by the Earth's atmosphere will color the moon's surface unpredictably, and during past eclipses it has appeared a deep bronze or blood red or even a dark yellow.
Totality ends at 12:53 a.m. Tuesday, and the last of the partial eclipse finishes at 2:01 a.m.
Two Bay Area institutions have announced public events for the eclipse.
The Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland will be open from 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. for its Midnight Delight, rain or shine. If the sky is clear, visitors can watch the eclipse from the observatory's deck and through its major telescopes. A simulated eclipse will be shown in the Chabot planetarium, and astronomers will explain the event to visitors.
The Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley will be open from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. and will also offer a planetarium show, telescope viewing and explanations by astronomers and veteran eclipse enthusiasts.
On the Internet
Helpful NASA video of the total lunar eclipse, along with animations and more information about the moon and the night sky, can be found at shadowandsubstance.com.
E-mail David Perlman at dperlman@sfchronicle.com. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/18/BAJ31GSALU.DTL#ixzz18fT57LJH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
