So did the double dip in housing begin? Why is everyone still bullish on housing?
Double Dip
By HousingBoom Follow Mon, 4 Oct 2010, 11:07pm 23,453 views 555 comments
Watch (3) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike « First « Previous Viewing Comments 516-555 of 555 Last » See most liked comments
|
HousingBoom is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (3)
9 threads
706 comments
Los Angeles, CA
gameisrigged says
You are indeed very funny.
My distinction between objective and subjective is not based on my opinion but on the definition of the terms. I hate to break it to you, but it is what it is.
ob·jec·tive
-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
sub·jec·tive
-existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective)
But you probably don't care about that - people in this forum say it's objective so it must be. Screw the dictionary! For all I know, the dictionary is a realtor!!
:)
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
617 comments
Me: "Your distinction between objective and subjective is irrelevant"
You: "My distinction is not based on my opinion but on the definition of the terms"
Whaaa?
Nice non sequitur - got anything else?
Love the dictionary definitions, though. Figure out how to use a search engine all by yourself, did you?
Follow
Befriend (7)
1 threads
1,217 comments
iwog says
The housing bubble over the past decade begs to differ.
So can you point out one that isn't 20% overpriced?
Follow
Befriend (9)
6 threads
194 comments
Dublin, CA
Cvoc13's website
iwog says
What is wrong with you? Are you kidding? Oh just because it moves does not mean it was priced right, A idiot could have bought, To say what you are saying is to believe that OVER PAYING is impossible, and it is NOT... to be sure.
Follow
Befriend
10 comments
The U.S. housing market, overall, is between 20% and 50% overpriced, in today's dollars. Anyone who mentions fundamentals, but doesn't mention energy costs, does not understand fundamentals.
There will be zero 'real' growth in the U.S. economy with continuously rising energy costs. Credit will continue to contract in a no growth, and even negative growth, environment. You all need to seriously catch up on peak oil, and your global politics.
I can see cities like Phoenix easily losing half a million people over the next 20 years (Unless of course the tax payers throw money down a solar panel rat hole, or some such program) The only areas that may hold their value from this point, are those in and around historic economic and military strategic locations, with a resilient web of jobs, waterways, rail, and sufficient rainfall.
The only things I see that can save the market are a change in government to socialism or fascism, a miracle energy technology, or the U.S. blowing up the rest of the world leading to a large influx of people. Most suburbs built in recent years are going to get decimated.
Follow
Befriend (7)
1 threads
1,217 comments
Cvoc13 says
Reminds me of a conversation with my father a couple of years ago. His neighbor was trying to sell his house at a ridiculous price compared to the comps. He didn't see why it wouldn't sell for close to the listing price, and after explaining how delusional the seller was, he asked "Does that mean nobody would pay that amount?" I said sure, somebody COULD. There's an idiot born every minute. Somebody from overseas with a lot of money and little interest in comparables might find something uniquely appealing and purchase the house outright without a care in the world as to its "value" to somebody else. But that one person's opinion alone isn't enough to fundamentally make the house "worth" what he's paying.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,653 comments
Cvoc13 says
I think the old saying that something is worth whatever someone will pay for it is right. You might say that in your opinion something is overpriced, but if it sells, then it wasn't. Someone else placed a higher value on it then you did. There is no "fundamental" price of a house.
Just because the value falls in the future doesn't mean it was overpriced.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,191 threads
6,158 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
tatupu70 says
I disagree, because for houses, there is an alternative to compare to: you can rent the same thing and live the same lifestyle in the same neighborhood.
The owner may well have a provable and measurable financial loss compared to the renter.
That loss is money that was burned just to get a warm feeling.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,583 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
klarek says
That's hindsight.
You're picking an arbitrary point after the fact and saying real estate was overpriced because you know what happened next. Was real estate overpriced if you bought in 2004 and sold in 2006? Obviously not, yet if you bought in 2004 and sold in 2009 THEN you say it was overpriced.
This type of subjective relativistic second guessing is what people do to convince themselves they are smarter than the markets. Here's a different example:
An oil contract sells in January 2008 for $90 a barrel with a delivery date of June 2011. Just a year earlier, this contract sold for $70. Is it overpriced?
That all depends on when you sell. If you sell in June 2008 it's underpriced. If you sell it in January 2009 it's grossly overpriced. If you sell it in late 2010 it's fairly priced, and if you sell it right now it's underpriced again.
Everything is priced "right" at the moment it sells. You can bet which direction the market will go, you can even have good reasons why, but you can NEVER say you're smarter than the market. That's a fools game.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,653 comments
Patrick says
I agree with what you are saying. And for you(and me too)--there is no value to that warm fuzzy feeling. But, to someone else, that warm fuzzy feeling may be worth it. Or maybe owning carries other aspects that someone values.
Someone felt that house was worth the amount they paid. Whether you agree isn't important.
eg--I don't like Big Macs. I wouldn't pay $.50 for one. Does that mean they are overpriced at $3.00?
Follow
Befriend (2)
14 threads
648 comments
tatupu70 says
the argument that there is no fundamental value is offered by those that do not understand statistics.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,653 comments
Syphilis says
try again.
Follow
Befriend (7)
1 threads
1,217 comments
iwog says
So you're saying that all are at least 20% overpriced?
Follow
Befriend (2)
14 threads
648 comments
tatupu70 says
no point trying.
willful ignorance can't be remedied.
Follow
Befriend (3)
9 threads
706 comments
Los Angeles, CA
klarek says
No, he's telling you that if you ask him in 2015, he'll tell you if it was overpriced in 2011.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,191 threads
6,158 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
tatupu70 says
OK, so we agree people often spend way more than necessary, just to get some intangible feeling. An outside observer might not be able to see any difference in the lifestyle of a renter vs an owner of the same house, but the owner has the feeling "it's mine".
Big Mac is not a good analogy, because you consume it. I think owning vs renting a car is better. If you can rent the same model car for less than the cost of owning it (depreciation, repairs, etc) then it's silly to overpay to own it.
Follow
Befriend (3)
9 threads
706 comments
Los Angeles, CA
SubOink says
Oops, wrong quote - sorry...
klarek says
No, he’s telling you that if you ask him in 2015, he’ll tell you if it was overpriced in 2011
Follow
Befriend (7)
1 threads
1,217 comments
Patrick says
Exactly. And just because that car is purchased by somebody who does not bother calculating trade-offs or alternatives that are - logically - more justifiable, it doesn't mean that he's paying what it's actually worth. He's justifying its price at that moment to anybody else that doesn't evaluate it properly like him.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
750 comments
Redwood City, CA
The car thing is actually pretty good. Owning a car is cheaper than leasing the car if you're going to keep the car for a long time, but it 'feels' more expensive because you have the initial up front investment. Leasing has no big upfront costs (or at least much lower ones), but would cost more if you kept renewing the lease on the car until it finally croaked.
If you like a new car (or moving) every 2 years, definitely lease (or rent). If you're in it for a long haul, buying is better. Except when you're in a massive bubble where buying is WAY more expensive than renting. :D
Seriously, if the dealership told you that you can lease this car based on a 20k purchase price, or buy it for 40k. Who would buy the car? But that's what happened with housing. And is still happening.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,583 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
SubOink says
Exactly! Unfortunately that's not the way the term is being used. I've heard numerous people say something to the effect of:
"you were stupid for buying x because it was obviously overpriced"
No, it's never obviously overpriced. If it was, we'd all be billionaires. We'd simply find a stock or commodity that's obviously overpriced and short the hell out of it.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,653 comments
klarek says
But you make false assumptions there. Just because someone pays more than you would doesn't mean they didn't calculate trade-offs or that they didn't evaluate the purchase logically. It may just mean that they value things differently than you.
Follow
Befriend (2)
15 threads
430 comments
Reston, VA
We could say that the market is always right at any given time, throw in the towel, and shut this site down. Clearly, we all find some utility in discussing whether housing is going up or down. That is the relevant question.
Now, to the semantics...most people would say that housing in 2006 was overpriced. If someone sold a house in 2006 for $500K that just sold again for $250K, the original seller (at 500K) would not think that they priced it too high (overpriced). Of course, they priced it right for their purposes. But by any objective long term standard, it was either overpriced then or underpriced now. The reason for the short-term price change (on the market) is due to a collective opinion change about what the future price will be.
Follow
Befriend
10 comments
Wow, you people are still arguing using data during the peak of the U.S. empire, and the world's economic expansion. We're on the verge of a 100+ year change in society; a change from an oil society, and fossil fuel eventually, to something else. Yet you all insist on using the old data.
Whether you are right or wrong within the scope of your argument is irrelevant, your scope is way too small.
This place is beat. Peace Out.
Follow
Befriend (2)
10 threads
84 comments
Oakland, CA
Blindweb says
Whoa. Who the hell was that?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,583 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Blindweb says
And your scope is way too large.
Even the most dire peak oil forecasts still have us at 50% production in 2040, and both coal oil and natural gas can fuel cars just fine. We have massive reserves of natural gas and more coal than any country in the world.
That's not to say that oil prices wont cause a depression while we're trying to solve all these energy issues, but they aren't insurmountable problems and the United States is in an excellent position to reassert itself as the lone world superpower with the largest reserves of remaining energy.
Unfortunately a separate issue, politics, is likely going to make it a fascist one.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
Landru3000 says
Sounds like some beatnik from Santa Cruz. Most likely arguing the use of Hemp as alternative.
Bong Hit!
Follow
Befriend (3)
9 threads
706 comments
Los Angeles, CA
Blindweb says
The scary part is, there are lot of people that think like that, luckily, they all live in a farm way out in AZ, armed to the teeth, ready for aliens to take over.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,583 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
SubOink says
Sign me up for one of them polygamist survival cults!
Follow
Befriend (1)
8 threads
242 comments
Blindweb says
We need no government change to either (though you seem to allude that would be good).
We need the govt. returning to what it was in FDR/Truman times:
balanced budget; limited entitlements (with high SS age relative to life span); consistent, generous investments into the future - infrastructure development, industrial policy, education, science and technology; vigorous suppression of unamerican activities internally; unapologetic use of overwhelming force against external adversaries; rational and patriotic education; controlling excesses of wealth; focus on domestic energy sources and nuclear power. Some (such as at the "Institute of Historic Review") think that was "fascism". So be it.
We need no miracle energy technology. We need aggressive development of nuclear power (with govt. overriding and removing environmental, NIMBY and other opposition), solar power, unapalogetic use of military force to defend and secure the lawful property and concessions of US oil companies abroad, hydroelectric power where reasonable, and broad latitude for domestic oil and gas drilling. Roughly in that order.
We need not blow up anyone to get large influxes of immigrants, there are more willing than we can take as is. We need a rational points-based immigration policy selecting for skills, youth, wealth, and English proficiency (similar to Canada and Australia with some tweaks) and ENFORCE it by whatever means necessary.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
Why the Housing Market is Three Times Worse Than You Think
http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/why-the-housing-market-is-three-times-worse-than-you-think.html
Between the recent report that sales of new homes hit a record low in February and this week's news that 19 of the 20 largest metro areas tracked by the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index saw a price slump in January, it hasn't exactly been a stellar few weeks for the housing market. And yet another data dump tracking foreclosed and distressed homes that have yet to hit the markets - what's known as "shadow inventory" - suggests things are not likely to get a whole lot better for a long time.
Skip
Add it all up, and NAR's 8.6 month official backlog triples to about two years or so.
Follow
Befriend (5)
10 threads
2,329 comments
Landru3000 says
Apocalypse with moderate views!
Follow
Befriend
1 comments
Been lurking here for awhile and thought I'd jump in with my first post. I been active at the courthouse steps in Nor Cal and been keenly interested in the general direction we're heading in housing values. I'm conflicted in my take on the direction (up or down?) as I'm heavily mortgaged and underwater on property in Marin (acquired in 2005) and yet I have ample cash in my retirement accounts to buy multiple properties. I just can't payoff my own mortgage due to tax rules that preclude self-dealing (must be fully arms length) with your retirement $$. So when I think about property going down in value, I get a smile on my face as I might be able to "buy" low(er) ... yet I visualize my mother-in-law driving off a cliff in my new convertible (conflicted) as a further drop (double dip) in property means that I'm ever deeper underwater on my own property.
My super-wild-ass-guess is that we are indeed going to drop a bit further ... but perhaps not so far or steeply downward as some here might believe. I also think there may well be sharp differences in local markets. Marin may be somewhat less susceptible (albeit not immune) to further slide as there is less supply here.
Also want to say that, from what I've read, many posters here seem to be pretty hard on Iwog ... I'm sure a few of the duck hunter shot-gun blasts are meant in good fun ... and he can quack-back as well as take ... but from what I've read, Iwog offers up cogent arguments and avoids ad hominem attacks ... I for one appreciate reading his views.
Follow
Befriend (5)
10 threads
2,329 comments
Some shadow inventory economics 101 for 2009 bottom callers:
http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/why-the-housing-market-is-three-times-worse-than-you-think.html
Follow
Befriend (7)
1 threads
1,217 comments
iwog says
iwog says
Look at what just happened.....
Case-Shiller just reported another down month.
Follow
Befriend (5)
10 threads
2,329 comments
klarek says
This?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Home-prices-fall-for-8th-rb-2501952475.html;_ylt=Al0ZudKgb3H7SXD8fQEq02W7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1aDdzdHAxBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNob21lcHJpY2VzZmE-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
Follow
Befriend (7)
1 threads
1,217 comments
bubblesitter says
Amazing, isn't it? 8th month in a row of declining prices. I'm flabbergasted. Perhaps there is an explanation. Conventional wisdom suggests that the first time homebuyer tax credit caused a two-year "bump" in prices, blowing air into the housing bubble, which waned away upon its termination. But our resident market bull here has largely discounted this, attributing the past rise in prices to a market that was flat, totally bottomed out (coincidentally, at the credit's inception), flattish, possibly dipping, but really flattened. Most recent hypothesis provided was that these (flat) price declines were because of seasonal variation (winter doldrums in August), but I'm not seeing that early spring bounce we were all promised.
I'm eagerly awaiting for iwog to explain how he's right and everybody else was wrong. Instead, he'll probably just shit on Case-Shiller.
Follow
Befriend
11 comments
Studio City, CA
sfvrealestate's website
Why are people bullish? Because they need a place to live and usually have to pay for that place. Owning isn't for everybody, but honestly, economics aside, don't you get tired of your landlord's nonsense?
Follow
Befriend (3)
29 threads
490 comments
Denver, CO
sfvrealestate says
I have owned two homes, and I have rented 7 or 8 places. The only "nonsense" I have had to put up with is a landlord trying to charge for damage that I didn't cause (and that worked out OK, but there was some BS involved), and a landlord who is rather cheap on the repairs (but took care of the important things). So, really, I haven't had much landlord nonsense to deal with -- NOTHING compared to the maintenance nonsense that I had to deal with.
Maybe I have gotten lucky, or maybe it's because I'm an excellent tenant and they treat me well to keep me. But honestly, not much nonsense.
Follow
Befriend (1)
24 threads
557 comments
klarek says
Is it? Higher food/gas prices, loans harder to get, the slow job market, people underwater on their current homes, people waiting for the market to bottom out...
Follow
Befriend (5)
10 threads
2,329 comments
StoutFiles says
Throw in the spices of higher rate and govt pullout(if at all it happens) and you know what would happen.