« previous   misc   next »

Double Dip


By HousingBoom   Follow   Mon, 4 Oct 2010, 4:07pm PDT   25,785 views   540 comments
Watch (3)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

So did the double dip in housing begin? Why is everyone still bullish on housing?

Comments 1-40 of 540     Next »     Last »

gameisrigged   Mon, 4 Oct 2010, 5:14pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 1

Wishful thinking. The bulls all own homes and are frightened of losing equity, so they remain in denial.

OCmonitor   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 3:18am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

That is so true. All my friends who are homeowners have been in incredible denial for years. They can't read the logic of a possibility. I understand it. It's an emotional attachment.

JimAtLaw   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 3:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

90% of my friends who own homes have been saying we're at a bottom literally continuously since 2007. It's pretty interesting how widespread it is - absolutely everyone thinks that where *they* live is "different" and that each passing month of lowering prices must be the last one, and doesn't apply on their block...

bubblesitter   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 3:53am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 4

What amuses me as that correction started in 2006-2007 and people(existing homeowners) were calling bottom already in 2009. Like 10 years of crazy appreciation was okay but 2 years into down turn and we are fine....it is going to start recover now...

gameisrigged   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 7:05am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

I remember talking to someone in 2007 who had bought property in Vegas as an investment. I told them they should think about selling it since there was likely to be a downturn in prices. But they informed me that no, the downturn had already happened and was over with.

tatupu70   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 7:17am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

bubblesitter says

What amuses me as that correction started in 2006-2007 and people(existing homeowners) were calling bottom already in 2009. Like 10 years of crazy appreciation was okay but 2 years into down turn and we are fine….it is going to start recover now…

Why do you think it's going to a symmetrical rise and fall? Better to look at price/rent or price/income ratios. If those are OK, it doesn't matter if it's been 1 year or 15 years...

vain   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 8:29am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 7

I think prices are correct in my area.

Let's look at a typical lower end home in San Francisco.

You should be able to get one for $450k or so in the south eastern neighborhoods.

Put 20% down ($90k). You will need a loan of $360k. The mortgage for that is around $1800/month. Income requirement for a safe mortgage is $5400/month, or $65k/year. That's couple earning $32500/year. San Francisco minimum wage is nearly $10/hour. A couple earning minimum wage has a household income of $41k. If prices go any lower, you will soon be competing with minimum wage earners. Do you guys realistically think market conditions will allow minimum wage earners to be able to afford a home?

Tude   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 9:51am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

Vain says

I think prices are correct in my area.
Let’s look at a typical lower end home in San Francisco.
You should be able to get one for $450k or so in the south eastern neighborhoods.
Put 20% down ($90k). You will need a loan of $360k. The mortgage for that is around $1800/month. Income requirement for a safe mortgage is $5400/month, or $65k/year. That’s couple earning $32500/year. San Francisco minimum wage is nearly $10/hour. A couple earning minimum wage has a household income of $41k. If prices go any lower, you will soon be competing with minimum wage earners. Do you guys realistically think market conditions will allow minimum wage earners to be able to afford a home?

Your fuzzy math is what got us into this problem in the first place. You act as if taxes don't exist!

iwog   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 10:01am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

bubblesitter says

Like 10 years of crazy appreciation was okay but 2 years into down turn and we are fine….it is going to start recover now…

Assuming the top was in 2006, 2009 would be 3 years into the downturn.

10-year bull markets ending with 3 year bear markets include the Great Depression, (late 1929 to late 1932) the tech market boom, (2000 to late 2002) and pretty much every other market example in the recorded history of mankind.

Not only is 10 years of crazy appreciation followed by a 3 year bear market the historical norm, it makes perfect sense in an economy that is growing 95% of the time.

RayAmerica   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 10:41am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

Iwog seems to think that stagnation is a good thing after a bust. The stock market crash of '29 did not return to its previous value (except the Sucker's Rally of, I believe, '32) until the mid 1950's. The tech market collapse led to a stagnant, bottom out market ever since the collapse. The NADAQ hit about 5500 at its peak and has struggled to stay above 2000 ever since. Except for various, relatively small real estate markets, prices will continue to drop and at best be stagnant for at least another ten years.

gameisrigged   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 10:51am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

Lawrence Yun, er, I mean Iwog wrote:

the tech market boom, (2000 to late 2002)

Actually, no. The tech run-up and bust is quite symmetrical if you look at a chart of the NASDAQ.

iwog   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 11:04am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

RayAmerica says

Iwog seems to think that stagnation is a good thing after a bust. The stock market crash of ‘29 did not return to its previous value (except the Sucker’s Rally of, I believe, ‘32) until the mid 1950’s. The tech market collapse led to a stagnant, bottom out market ever since the collapse. The NADAQ hit about 5500 at its peak and has struggled to stay above 2000 ever since. Except for various, relatively small real estate markets, prices will continue to drop and at best be stagnant for at least another ten years.

I think a stagnant market is a wonderful thing. Prices are constant, rents get paid, and the economy goes along just fine.

Starting in 1933 the stock market made tons of money for anyone who bought at the bottom. Starting in 2003 the Nasdaq market more than doubled earning more than 10% per year. People who bought real estate in 2009 will be well rewarded even if the 2006 peak doesn't come back for decades.

Isn't that the entire point?

iwog   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 11:12am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

gameisrigged says

Actually, no. The tech run-up and bust is quite symmetrical if you look at a chart of the NASDAQ.

Incorrect. The run up to the peak in early 2000 is almost EXACTLY 10 years. If you start with the Kuwait invasion sell off in late 1990, to the peak in the first quarter of 2000 you get about 9.5 years during which the market gained steadily every single year save one. (notice it almost doubled from 1991 to 1995 before doubling again)

Nasdaq is a textbook 10 year bull market bubble followed by a 3 year bear market bottom. Gold is very close to retracing the entire chart although I expect the bear market phase to last no longer than a year. (similar to oil)

Basically ALL bubble markets follow this pattern. Real Estate is not special in any way other than the high cost and slow transaction speed of real estate limited appreciation to 100-200%. If the real estate bear market lasted longer than 4 years, it would be UNPRECEDENTED in American history. It will not happen. 2009 was the California bottom and may turn out to be the national bottom as well.

graph

EastCoastBubbleBoy   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 11:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

Vain - 1) coming up with $90k - that's the hard part.
You also need to include taxes & insurance into your mortgage payment (unless you pay them separately, but from all that I have read, most don't, at lest not initially)

If rates hold (or go lower due to QE2) then yes, we are close to a forced bottom in most areas.

seaside   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 1:25pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

Vain, I think current DTI is 0.31 and 0.43 front and back. So, do your math again with that ratio, and see if bank will give 65Kers 360K loan at 30yrs/4.3%. I can hardly think so. If I were one of those 65K'er, I wouldn't take 360K loan even if I could. 5400 gross, 3500 or so net/mo, and take 1800/mo for mortgage gives you 1700/mo in your hands. 1700/mo for prop tax, HOA if any, util, auto loan, credit card payments, food, cloth, health care, expenses for the kids, transportation, maintenance and other fees in place like SF? You gotta think twice about it before taking it.

ECCB, your notion about QE2 is interesting point. Burnake implied it several times before. Not sure he will pull the string soon or not. But the effect of stimulus is wearing out, and the Fed is feeling the need of another massive scale monetary injection. With tax payers money or by crying out loud in front of chinese? Anyway, that I think, will force the RE market shake even in those resilent places like SF, DFW and DC if happens. One of the reason why inflation is not kicking in regardless of all those money government spent is those banks and manufacturers keeping themselves in low profile, holding money for the balancing purpose. I think they should fire Burnanke and Geithner, and the start squeeze those banks instead though, who am I to say the government what to do?

thomas.wong1986   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 2:31pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

iwog says

It will not happen. 2009 was the California bottom and may turn out to be the national bottom as well.

You have that backward, most of the nation has or will see a bottom long before CA has a bottom. CA has a long way to go.

thomas.wong1986   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 2:50pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

iwog says

People who bought real estate in 2009 will be well rewarded even if the 2006 peak doesn’t come back for decades

Or as the NAR would say, buy now or be priced out forever.

iwog   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 3:08pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

thomas.wong1986 says

You have that backward, most of the nation has or will see a bottom long before CA has a bottom. CA has a long way to go.

Funny how San Francisco and California in general are the strongest markets in the country according to Case-Shiller during the last 16 months.

Did they not get your memo?

gameisrigged   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 3:11pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

iwog says

gameisrigged says

Actually, no. The tech run-up and bust is quite symmetrical if you look at a chart of the NASDAQ.

Incorrect.

Uh, nope, Lawrence. Quite correct.

Nasdaq is a textbook 10 year bull market bubble followed by a 3 year bear market bottom. Gold is very close to retracing the entire chart although I expect the bear market phase to last no longer than a year. (similar to oil)

Basically ALL bubble markets follow this pattern. Real Estate is not special in any way other than the high cost and slow transaction speed of real estate limited appreciation to 100-200%. If the real estate bear market lasted longer than 4 years, it would be UNPRECEDENTED in American history. It will not happen. 2009 was the California bottom and may turn out to be the national bottom as well.

graph

You’re taking that chart and starting the bubble 1990? By that warped logic, why not say the bubble started in 1975? You can see that the graph goes consistently upward from 1975 until 2000. So instead of that silliness, why don’t we actually look at the boom and bust, as I said? As you can see, there is a reasonably symmetrical inverted “V” shape. You want to count everything BEFORE that and claim it’s not symmetrical? Be my guest. Don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. Do you know what "symmetrical" means?

vain   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 3:21pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 20

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Vain - 1) coming up with $90k - that’s the hard part.

ECBB, seaside,
I agree coming up with the down payment may be tough. Having a loan a bank says is "safe" does not mean it is safe for me to get. But there are lots of suckers out there so you may have to wait all of them out. I personally am tired of waiting. I am constantly putting offers on what we think the home is worth. If we get it we get it. If we don't we don't. We've backed out of 2 short sales to date since the bank was dragging it on and only accepting the offer once the prices appear to be declining.

iwog   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 3:25pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

gameisrigged says

You’re taking that chart and starting the bubble 1990? By that warped logic, why not say the bubble started in 1975? You can see that the graph goes consistently upward from 1975 until 2000. So instead of that silliness, why don’t we actually look at the boom and bust, as I said? As you can see, there is a reasonably symmetrical inverted “V” shape. You want to count everything BEFORE that and claim it’s not symmetrical? Be my guest. Don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. Do you know what “symmetrical” means?

Yeah, except it doesn't and the chart being "symmetrical" hasn't the slightest thing to do with what the conversation was about.

From 1986 to 1991 the NAS gain was about 0%. From 1991 to 1995 there's a 100% gain. From 1995 to 1998 there's another 100% gain. From 1998 to 1999 there's another 100% gain.

Clearly to anyone not blinded by an agenda, 1991 to 2000 was a 10-year bull market. 2000 through 2002 was a 3-year bear market. My POINT in posting all these facts is that the real estate bubble was ALSO a 10-year bull market and 2006 to 2009 was ALSO a 3-year bear market. Ultimately I was responding to bubblesitter, who thought that a 3-correction after a 10-year run wasn't enough.

Not only is it enough, it's almost ALWAYS what happens no matter what market bubble you're studying.

iwog   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 3:38pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

10-year bull market bubble starting in late 1920 and peaking in late 1929 followed by a 3-year bear market.

graph

seaside   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 4:16pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/10/05/n_whitney_banks_housing.cnnmoney/

There's some mention at the end about possibility of double dip in housing sector.
Some of you don't like whitney, I know, I know. I am posting this because of the other lady. :P

thomas.wong1986   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 4:35pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 24

iwog says

Funny how San Francisco and California in general are the strongest markets in the country according to Case-Shiller during the last 16 months.
Did they not get your memo?

LOL! not to be found in South Bay! We have a long way to go...

Property History for 1251 BIG TALK Ct

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Jose/1251-Big-Talk-Ct-95120/home/931773

Date Event Price Appreciation Source

Sep 10, 2010 Price Changed $798,950 -- MLSListings #81032026
Aug 02, 2010 Price Changed $825,000 -- MLSListings #81032026
Jul 23, 2010 Price Changed $870,000 -- MLSListings #81032026
Jul 21, 2010 Price Changed $970,000 -- MLSListings #81032026
Jun 28, 2010 Listed $900,000 -- MLSListings #81032026
Sep 01, 2005 Sold (Public Records) $100,000 -- Public Records

thomas.wong1986   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 4:43pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 25

This one didnt get the memo either...for a 3000 sq ft home its worth $600K.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Jose/6528-Leyland-Park-Dr-95120/home/1311146

Property History for 6528 LEYLAND PARK Dr
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Oct 01, 2010 Price Changed $900,000 -- MLSListings #81019940
Sep 19, 2010 Price Changed $925,000 -- MLSListings #81019940
Sep 09, 2010 Price Changed $950,000 -- MLSListings #81019940
Sep 03, 2010 Price Changed $975,000 -- MLSListings #81019940
Aug 20, 2010 Relisted -- --
May 27, 2010 Delisted -- --
May 21, 2010 Price Changed $995,000 -- MLSListings #81019940
Apr 23, 2010 Listed $1,025,000 -- MLSListings #81019940
Apr 23, 2010 Delisted -- --
Jan 21, 2010 Price Changed -- --
Jan 11, 2010 Listed -- --
Mar 15, 2007 Sold (Public Records) $1,311,500 10.4%/yr Public Records
Mar 02, 2007 Delisted -- --
Feb 22, 2007 Listed ** --
Sep 03, 1997 Sold (Public Records) $509,000 -- Public Records

iwog   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 4:44pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

thomas.wong1986 says

LOL! not to be found in South Bay! We have a long way to go…

Price changes have absolutely no relevance to anything. The only way to gauge prices is an index or a survey based on actual sales.

thomas.wong1986   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 4:50pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

iwog says

Price changes have absolutely no relevance to anything. The only way to gauge prices is an index or a survey based on actual sales

It aint selling!

gameisrigged   Tue, 5 Oct 2010, 4:52pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 28

iwog says

gameisrigged says

You’re taking that chart and starting the bubble 1990? By that warped logic, why not say the bubble started in 1975? You can see that the graph goes consistently upward from 1975 until 2000. So instead of that silliness, why don’t we actually look at the boom and bust, as I said? As you can see, there is a reasonably symmetrical inverted “V” shape. You want to count everything BEFORE that and claim it’s not symmetrical? Be my guest. Don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. Do you know what “symmetrical” means?

Yeah, except it doesn’t and the chart being “symmetrical” hasn’t the slightest thing to do with what the conversation was about.

You didn't say it had nothing to do with the conversation, you said it was "incorrect". It is not incorrect, it is symmetrical - that is if you'd take your head out of your ass and actually LOOK at the fucking chart.

From 1986 to 1991 the NAS gain was about 0%. From 1991 to 1995 there’s a 100% gain. From 1995 to 1998 there’s another 100% gain. From 1998 to 1999 there’s another 100% gain.

Oooh, we can cherry pick dates. Aren't we clever?

Clearly to anyone not blinded by an agenda, 1991 to 2000 was a 10-year bull market. 2000 through 2002 was a 3-year bear market. My POINT in posting all these facts is that the real estate bubble was ALSO a 10-year bull market and 2006 to 2009 was ALSO a 3-year bear market. Ultimately I was responding to bubblesitter, who thought that a 3-correction after a 10-year run wasn’t enough.
Not only is it enough, it’s almost ALWAYS what happens no matter what market bubble you’re studying.

That's utter b.s. That is NOTHING like any of the housing bubble/bust cycles.

Look at the 1970s and 1980s bubbles. They go up, then come down in roughly the same amount of time. Where's this alleged 10 year up and 3 year down pattern? I don't see it. In fact, it looks like they actually took LONGER to deflate than they took to inflate. Now look at the current bubble. It goes up for about 9 years, then starts going down at roughly the same rate, then has a very odd looking little uptick, which just happens to coincide with the federal government pumping trillions of dollars into the housing market and making over 90% of all new home loans. Sorry, but your analysis does not cut it.

tatupu70   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 12:03am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

Still think the double dip is coming?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Home-loans-for-purchases-rise-apf-775022902.html?x=0

mthom   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 12:12am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

thomas.wong1986 says

This one didnt get the memo either…for a 3000 sq ft home its worth $600K.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Jose/6528-Leyland-Park-Dr-95120/home/1311146
Property History for 6528 LEYLAND PARK Dr
Date Event Price Appreciation Source
Oct 01, 2010 Price Changed $900,000 — MLSListings #81019940
Sep 19, 2010 Price Changed $925,000 — MLSListings #81019940
Sep 09, 2010 Price Changed $950,000 — MLSListings #81019940
Sep 03, 2010 Price Changed $975,000 — MLSListings #81019940
Aug 20, 2010 Relisted — —
May 27, 2010 Delisted — —
May 21, 2010 Price Changed $995,000 — MLSListings #81019940
Apr 23, 2010 Listed $1,025,000 — MLSListings #81019940
Apr 23, 2010 Delisted — —
Jan 21, 2010 Price Changed — —
Jan 11, 2010 Listed — —
Mar 15, 2007 Sold (Public Records) $1,311,500 10.4%/yr Public Records
Mar 02, 2007 Delisted — —
Feb 22, 2007 Listed ** —
Sep 03, 1997 Sold (Public Records) $509,000 — Public Records

You disprove your own point with these posts Thomas. Yes, in your mind it is worth $600k, but it's listed at $900k. Fine, they've been dropping their price, but you don't know where it will end up selling. It's not gonna be $600k though. And it certainly doesn't seem to be crashing down to the 97 price of $509k.

bubblesitter   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 12:13am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

thomas.wong1986 says

iwog says

People who bought real estate in 2009 will be well rewarded even if the 2006 peak doesn’t come back for decades

Or as the NAR would say, buy now or be priced out forever.

...or who did not buy in 2009 missed the chance to build equity(negative).

justme   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 12:48am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

iwog says

10-year bull markets ending with 3 year bear markets include the Great Depression, (late 1929 to late 1932) the tech market boom, (2000 to late 2002) and pretty much every other market example in the recorded history of mankind.

Uh, except not so much.

IF we are interested in stock market indices and their bubble and post-bubble behavior, Japan should be one of the major reference points. I think it is fair to say that they experienced the mother of all double dips, so far. In fact, it has been a succession of progressive dips, one worse than the other, for 20 years now. So there goes 10+3 theory down the drain.

This also brings up the a larger question: Why on earth on earth is iwog using select stock market indices to argue that there will be no double dip in housing? And then turning it into a discussion of what STOCK markets bubbles "usually" look or do not like? I think it is more indicative of iwog's propensity to grasp for data, any data, that can somehow and disingenuously be contorted into supporting one of his usual arguments.

Do not forget: This is about the *housing* market. If we are looking for models of what might happen here, we should again look to the Japan housing market 1980-2010, and not the stock market. Japan has been in a long and painful decline, even with very extensive support from Bank of Japan.

I'm sure iwog will again latch onto some tangent and try his best to steer this discussion into the weeds again. You've been warned.

This is a historical plot of the Nikkei 225 index

Let me summarize:

1. stock market bubbles don't always look like 10+3

2. it is important to look at the relevant stock market, if you insist on correlating anyway

3. it isn't stock bubbles we are looking at, it is HOUSING bubbles.

NEXT!

iwog   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 1:02am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 33

gameisrigged says

You didn’t say it had nothing to do with the conversation, you said it was “incorrect”. It is not incorrect, it is symmetrical - that is if you’d take your head out of your ass and actually LOOK at the fucking chart.

If you think that 10 years of increase followed by 3 years of decrease is symmetrical, I can't help you.

iwog   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 1:07am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 34

justme says

1. stock market bubbles don’t always look like 10+3

2. it is important to look at the relevant stock market, if you insist on correlating anyway

3. it isn’t stock bubbles we are looking at, it is HOUSING bubbles.

1. Japan is not relevant to our economy. The differences between the US economy and the economy in Japan are too numerous to list. As for parallels, there aren't any. The only support you're willing to give for using Japan is that it fits your bias.

2. Apparently the way you define "relevant stock market" is "Japan". See #1.

3. The oil bubble conforms to the 10/3 rule. The real estate bubble has ALREADY conformed to the 10/3 rule with prices turning right on schedule in 2009. It's hilarious to me that you argue against something that has already happened.

RayAmerica   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 1:43am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

iwog says

My POINT in posting all these facts is that the real estate bubble was ALSO a 10-year bull market and 2006 to 2009 was ALSO a 3-year bear market. Ultimately I was responding to bubblesitter, who thought that a 3-correction after a 10-year run wasn’t enough.
Not only is it enough, it’s almost ALWAYS what happens no matter what market bubble you’re studying.

A completely false statement. First, the bear market in residential real estate continues. The next bubble to burst will be commercial when an enormous amount of loans begin to reset in 2011, which will put further pressure on the credit markets. Second, Iwog repeats this nonsense that a correction after a market bubble "always lasts 3 years." This is total, absolute nonsense. The stock market bubble and subsequent crash of 1929 did not recover to its levels of '29 until the bid 1950's. Stocks remained consistently stagnant for nearly two decades after the crash. After the collapse of the NASDAQ it has been stagnant there as well. Yet, Iwog insists his silly theory is written in stone that for every bubble the "10/3" rule applies.

Talk about Voodoo Economics. Iwog, think before you post these silly observations of yours. Maybe, just maybe, you'll get someone to take you seriously.

justme   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 1:57am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

iwog says

As for parallels, there aren’t any

See what I mean, now iwog wants to misdirect into discussing whether Japan is similar to the US, whereas the real question was whether stock markets bubbles have the same shape as housing market bubbles, and also whether all stock market bubbles look the same. He says yes, I say no. Case in point: Japan!!

iwog says

and pretty much every other market example in the recorded history of mankind.

And now suddenly Japan does not qualify?

What is iwog's next misdirection going to be?

bubblesitter   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 2:30am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 37

justme says

What is iwog’s next misdirection going to be?

I like his spins for amusement. I can't imagine this blog could be lively without his inputs..

iwog   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 2:31am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

justme says

See what I mean, now iwog wants to misdirect into discussing whether Japan is similar to the US, whereas the real question was whether stock markets bubbles have the same shape as housing market bubbles

Nope, you're absolutely wrong. You obviously didn't read the thread. Your straw man has nothing to do with any point I made. My reply was to this:

bubblesitter says

What amuses me as that correction started in 2006-2007 and people(existing homeowners) were calling bottom already in 2009. Like 10 years of crazy appreciation was okay but 2 years into down turn and we are fine….it is going to start recover now…

After correcting BM that the bear market in housing lasted 3 years instead of 2, I then went on to prove that 10 year bull markets followed by 3 year bear markets are quite common. He should NOT assume that because a bull market lasts 10 years, that the bear market following it will be just as long.

Now please explain to me how Japan has any relevance to my point whatsoever?

iwog   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 2:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 39

justme says

And now suddenly Japan does not qualify?

Japan is an exception and was caused by circumstances that do not apply to the United States.

iwog   Wed, 6 Oct 2010, 2:35am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 40

RayAmerica says

the bear market in residential real estate continues.

Only if you pretend that up actually means down.

Next comments »     Last »

HousingBoom is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net