patrick.net

robertoaribas says

2 years and counting of complete wrongness!

Good! Some people have real jobs.

robertoaribas says

isn't really any point in trying to explain anything rational about real estate to you.

Yep. I guess it's hard to explain anything rational about basic human interaction to the Neanderthal from Phoenix.

John Bailo says

Ok, econ 101.

There are three people and 2 gum drops.

These are magic gum drops, one that a person has to consume every day to continue living.

How much is the gum drop worth to the 3rd person?

This is flawed. The 3rd person chose to rent instead of paying double for a gum drop. In some markets, this decision is actually the wisest.

Let's cool it down on here; only time will tell for sure what will happen.

Bears can't deny that low interest rates forced many people to reevaluate their buy vs. rent decision and jumped in. However, it does not seem like there are enough of these buyers to create real volume. Low end is definitely on fire but high end is not moving so fast due to many factors that I described in my previous threads.

If you are a real estate bull, enjoy your winnings which are very similar in percentage terms to buying 30 year treasury in the middle of 2011. So Roberto, you are not as much of a genius as you think. Anyone who was long duration in the last year and half made a lot of money together with the Fed. We will see if the winnings hold in three to five years.

Here is my thread from January about the possible headwinds: http://patrick.net/?p=1220983#

robertoaribas says

home prices have actually been slightly more likely to rise in years when interest rates go up, then what you claim. The reason for this is obvious: the Fed raises interest rates to cool down inflation, and if we have a strong enough economy to cause real inflation, especially wage inflation, home prices will have a stronger push from that, than from the interest rate increase.

Hi Roberto,
I have a question regarding this theory in terms of how it would relate to the current state of affairs. If the Fed raised rates to cool inflation, wouldn't the inflation be due to all of the borrowing the Fed is undertaking and not necessarily from a healthy economy & wage inflation?

robertoaribas says

the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient,

Geez, now I'm impressed. Yeah, yeah, yeah, mortgage payment is less than the rental income. That works for you, the investor. A home buyer is different, they make payments that today may be cheaper than rent, but when home prices fall they are stuck.

It means more home owners, debt slaves, will be underwater on mortgages.

This isn't a debate. The Fed will simply move on. Prices will decrease.

As prices decrease more sellers will list properties for sale because they realize they missed the peak. They will buy more house for less, and create that move up buyer market place. First time home buyers will have more choices.

The big residential investors who entered the market will sell, and reinvest elsewhere.

Again, I see Bernanke stepping down, or changing strategy in 2014.

As far as buying two years ago, I didn't, and wouldn't have recommended it. You got in in 2008, God bless you, but that was closer to where fair market value was.

Now what confuses you in your one size fits all strategy is that there are hot Real Estate market places. There are places, like Seattle Washington, that have great employment opportunities. Those places are bid up based on increased incomes. We have people from all over the world who want to, or need to live here. They pay a premium for that.

The Bay Area got to be a bargain compared to the global Real Estate market place.

You do realize there is a global Real Estate market place, I'm sure because you are telling me how smart you are.

So, it's a wage based, comparative global Real Estate market place that should be in your formula there.

robertoaribas says

Clearly facts and reality aren't your strong points, nor thinking...

Hmmmm.... rising interest rates, rising prices, and you have that in a chart, that must make for some kind of reality in your mind, but it's warm, and fuzzy math to me.

You forgot to mention the correlation of rising interest rates with inflation.

We get inflation when we have rising wages. If we have price increases without a rise in wages we have substitution, or doing without. We could also throw increasing debt as a way to bridge the gap.

Where is that increase of wages coming from?

I understand your comments.

I can imagine the types of questions on Roberto's Math tests:

How many homes did I purchase in the last year and how much money am I worth?

If the student got the answer wrong, he can expect an F and the word "IDIOT!" written at the top of the page.

robertoaribas says

dumbross, you said 2 years ago that prices were going to fall. Are you ready to apologize to everyone for bolloxing that all up 1000%???/

I don't think so. Your house price is still lower today than it was 2 years, relative to my real money which is gold, especially if you consider losing another 6% off the top, as soon as you sell it.

robertoaribas says

ok, continue in your contest to be the biggest dumbass ever on this website! it's close, but I think you can do it!!!!

Wonderful. Let's agree to disagree. But, I've gotta give it to you. As far as being the biggest asshole on this website, you're the top-down winner - no contest there!

robertoaribas says

you're a clueless twit

I would say a clueless twit is someone who invests all his money in one place.

waiting_for_the_fall says

I would say a clueless twit is someone who invests all his money in one place.

Is someone who holds all his money in cash, also a clueless twit by that definition?

If there is a currency crisis, having all cash is not the best idea.

waiting_for_the_fall says

If there is a currency crisis, having all cash is not the best idea.

Yes, but what if that cash constitutes the only currency which cannot be printed by the corrupt guberment!

robertoaribas says

Well, hell, since I guess you just accepted your award, I guess I'll take mine! Patrick, do I get a certificate or a medal or something?

Yes, but first, you need to change your avatar to an ass-hole!

robertoaribas says

yeah, well fortunately for me, my crackerjack analysis has put that one place
as the bets one place ever!!!

Your troll-like behavior makes me wonder if anything you've said is legit.

dunnross says

Yes, but first, you need to change your avatar to an ass-hole!

You being a dog lover that you are, let me recommend this one for you:

dunnross says

You being a dog lover that you are, let me recommend this one for you:

It's perfect, because, now we know which crack his crackerjack analysis is coming from.

robertoaribas says

it's pretty easy to look up all my properties on the county website...

But, I would recommend our readers, to consult the "National Sex Offenders" registry, first.

robertoaribas says

yeah, cause you get paid in gold... what a maroon!

The moron is the one who equates everything to $USD, worthless garbage, not worth the paper its written on. Go ahead and believe in your beloved $FED - suck Bernanke's d*ck if you so desire.

robertoaribas says

yeah, cause you get paid in gold... what a maroon!

And, BTW, 99% of the world's population don't get paid in dollars, either.

robertoaribas says

I only measure the price of homes in bottles of Charles shaw wine... Yep, homes have gone up a ton!

Only a moron realtwhore would call a house a home.

robertoaribas says

Charles shaw wine

And, BTW, the price of Charles Shaw wine went from $1.99 a bottle to $3.99 a bottle in just 3 years. The $USD has even fallen, relative to the 2-buck-chuck, which only a 2-cent peddler from Phoenix could drink.

dunnross says

robertoaribas says

I only measure the price of homes in bottles of Charles shaw wine... Yep, homes have gone up a ton!

Only a moron realtwhore would call a house a home.

Yes, because after all, we all know what the word home means... except, apparently, you.

robertoaribas says

It is still $1.99 in California, and $2.99 in AZ, just like it has been for a decade, dumbross!!!

"Prices in states other than California have been increased to as high as $3.79 per bottle." - Wikepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Shaw_wine

Only a moron like you would argue against something that could be so easily verified on the internet.

robertoaribas says

oh, so now you get paid in Yuan? So you price your homes in that currency? makes sense!

No, but it seems that you equate the price of everything else, to the price of your stinky, scorpion infested chicken coops, in the middle of a dry barren desert. When, supermarkets stop accepting $USD for food, I will be able to buy food with my gold and silver coins. I'd like to see what you can do with your stinky shacks.

dunnross says

robertoaribas says

It is still $1.99 in California, and $2.99 in AZ, just like it has been for a decade, dumbross!!!

"Prices in states other than California have been increased to as high as $3.79 per bottle." - Wikepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Shaw_wine

Only a moron like you would argue against something that could be so easily verified on the internet.

So was what he said right or wrong?

robertoaribas says

It is still $1.99 in California, and $2.99 in AZ, just like it has been for a decade, dumbross!!!

For a guy who is supposedly swimming in dough with all his investments, you sure spend a lot of time buying cheap $2 wine.

dunnross says

robertoaribas says

It is still $1.99 in California, and $2.99 in AZ, just like it has been for a decade, dumbross!!!

For a guy who is supposedly swimming in dough with all his investments, you sure spend a lot of time buying cheap $2 wine.

So it's back to $2 now. That was quick.

Bigsby says

So it's back to $2 now. That was quick.

No, it's still called $2-buck-chuck, but it's not $2 any more. That's why I said $2 wine. But, nice try, anyway.

dunnross says

Bigsby says

So it's back to $2 now. That was quick.

No, it's still called $2-buck-chuck, but it's not $2 any more. That's why I said $2 wine. But, nice try, anyway.

It isn't $2 anymore? I'm pretty sure I've seen it for $1.99...

robertoaribas says

It is still $1.99 in California

It's not even $2 in California any more. What a total, complete fool you are filthy house peddler from Phoenix. You can't even argue on your own turf. Ha, ha, ha!

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22420517/trader-joes-two-buck-chuck-price-rises-249-bottle

dunnross says

robertoaribas says

It is still $1.99 in California

It's not even $2 in California any more. What a total, complete fool you are filthy house peddler from Phoenix. You can't even argue on your own turf. Ha, ha, ha!

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22420517/trader-joes-two-buck-chuck-price-rises-249-bottle

Wow, absolutely ridiculous. You pull someone up in post after post about the price of a cheap bottle of wine that has just within a matter of weeks been raised in price to the staggering amount of $2.49. What exactly are you doing? It's just idiotic, much like your home comment. I remember Darrell in Phoenix saying the same thing. Says it all really.

Bigsby says

It isn't $2 anymore? I'm pretty sure I've seen it for $1.99...

Listen some more to your friend - the Bernanke-c**k-sucker, and you will believe in even more things.

Bigsby says

You pull someone up in post after post about the price of a cheap bottle of wine that has just within a matter of weeks been raised in price to the staggering amount of $2.49. What exactly are you doing?

I didn't bring up the cheap wine. It's your friend, the millionaire c**k-sucker who brought it up.

dunnross says

I didn't bring up the cheap wine. It's your friend, the millionaire c**k-sucker who brought it up. And, if you recall, he tried to let everyone know that I was wrong again, even about this. Let this be on the record, that, I was right, as always, the c**k-sucker was the one who called me a liar for no reason at all, when he was the one, who was wrong.

dunnross says

Bigsby says

You pull someone up in post after post about the price of a cheap bottle of wine that has just within a matter of weeks been raised in price to the staggering amount of $2.49. What exactly are you doing?

I didn't bring up the cheap wine. It's your friend, the millionaire c**k-sucker who brought it up.

Er, he's not my friend. And you are the one who spent an inordinate amount of time going on about his figures being wrong because, finally, you found out that, shock-horror, the price was raised to $2.49 a little over a month ago. Does this triumph make you feel better about yourself?

dunnross says

Bigsby says

It isn't $2 anymore? I'm pretty sure I've seen it for $1.99...

Listen some more to your friend - the Bernanke-c**k-sucker, and you will believe in even more things.

I was at my HOME in Monterey in January. It was $1.99. But thank you for finally finding out that it has gone up by 50c in the last 6 weeks so that you can shout about how right you are and how wrong Roberto is. Very grown up.

Bigsby says

you found out that, shock-horror, the price was raised to $2.49 a little over a month ago.

You missed the point, entirely. Now, you're trying to protect your friend, by attacking me. The idiot peddler from Phoenix tried to dishonor my good reputation on this blog, by attacking me about some cheap $2 wine, and then, both of you tried to attack me. I quietly retorted and proved both of you completely wrong, although it was your friend, the moron beastiologist from the desert, who accused me of being wrong about some stupid wine which he loves to drink so much.