Comments 1 - 26 of 26 Search these comments
we will all become welfare recipients.
it will be wonderful.
Smaulgld
I see you parallel the start of pat-net with impending RE rally with change to new pat-net with impending collapse of tech stocks.
You are implying soon?
Hard to say but if you pulled a list of sf tech companies and compared their sales, earnings and employees you'd see that profit per employee is near non existent.
Wall Street won't reward that forever
Where is Darlag?
Suppose that depends on the Yellin put and how long the stock market can remain irrational.
San Francisco tech companies with no earnings and multi billion dollar market caps are partially responsible for the massive increase in housing prices in the bay area.
When the stock market finally collapses there will be massive layoffs and the housing market will nose dive.
Patnet will chronicle it all.
Wow - strong words there... I guess for the "whats the best investment" there really is no rest for the weary - its a lifelong quest - its never over.
But what about the renter/ potential homeowner who gets terrified by all he reads here and wonders "I don't want to rent forever - when can I just buy and move on with my life"?
http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-10-city-composite-home-price-index
Far as I can tell, Case Shiller SF bottomed approx. 5 years ago at 119
It was at 173 (June 2013) when you first arrived and warned of a crash.
Today, its at 196...
So what for that poor guy? After 5+ years of renting and hoping, should he double down, waiting for nominal prices to smash below the 2009 levels so as to justify all this additional waiting? Or is this too extreme in your guestimate?
Put another way, while we all know that nominal prices can decline, is CS 118 off the table? If he decides to heed your warning and wait some more, what sort of nominal CS figure can he expect to see?
CDon- SF is unlike just about every real estate market in the world. It is similar only to, but perhaps more extreme than London, Hong Kong and New York.
Wall Street Hong Kong and London benefit from being thriving profitable financial centers, San Francisco profits from a temporary period of producing a crop of innovative and yet unprofitable companies.
SF is a boom bust town and this round is very similar to the dot com, gold rush and other booms and busts the city has endured.
SF is a boom bust town and this round is very similar to the dot com, gold rush and other booms and busts the city has endured.
I understand. And to your point, we see that .com bust in the data as SF dropped approx. 7% from Apr 2001 to Jan 2002.
http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-10-city-composite-home-price-index
-7% in 10 months is nothing to sneeze at - not by the investor, or the homeowner - so long as you got the timing pretty close.
Still, if that's all we see now, we only get down to low 180s which isn't much solace for the renter/ potential buyer who heeded your first warning at 173 (saying nothing of the bears of yesteryear who first warned him at 118 5 years ago).
So back to the question, I guess that's it then? Another 7% drop is the target on our CS chart? For the investor with impeccable timing, that's not bad.
But for the patnetter who wants to move on w life is this the target then? The lack of impeccable timing has thusfar hosed him pretty badly. Is your target here so severe a drop as to justify the additional waiting?
Again, just cause you are putting it out there, how do these strong words translate to the CS chart. Are you looking at -5% nominally? -20% nominally? Real declines/Nominal Increases? Just curious as to your best guess.
Again, just cause you are putting it out there, how do these strong words translate to the CS chart. Are you looking at -5% nominally? -20% nominally? Real declines/Nominal Increases? Just curious as to your best guess.
The problem with SF is that it lives on the edge- an earthquake could wipe out the whole place, a technology bust could do the same. It's hard to figure out what is "normal" for SF because everything from the people, the climate the job market is far from normal and every bubble is different, so the dotcom bubble may not be instructive.
I think any one that wants certainty and to "get on with their life" should move or accept the thrill of the uncertainty of living in SF
When the stock market finally collapses
Not chicken little-stock market crashes are something that happens from time to time. The impact would be felt far more in SF than elsewhere
The problem with SF is that it lives on the edge
Another problem that does not often get mentioned is the government creating an artificial scarcity on land thus driving the prices up or rent control or building regulations.
The problem with SF is that it lives on the edge
Another problem that does not often get mentioned is the government creating an artificial scarcity on land thus driving the prices up or rent control or building regulations.
That's true its hard to build new construction in SF BUT since it is already the most densely populated city in the US its hard to find much available space to build new construction anyway
Not even in the top 50 in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density
and 20th in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
I'm thinking the government has a lot to do with false dearth
Not even in the top 50 in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density
and 20th in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
I'm thinking the government has a lot to do with false dearth
I should have mentioned most densely populated of major cities.
Tiny towns on the list you linked to like
Guttenberg on the list with 10,000 people and Kaiser New York with 4700 are not major cities
Take Manhattan out of the equation with its 60-100 story apartments and San Francisco is BY Far the most densely populated major city as it has very few high rises just homes smashed up against each other
I had an EBT card once, when I got hurt and was out on medical for a few months. They put my disability pay on it, only way to get it.
So not everyone with EBT is a welfare lifer.
Take Manhattan out of the equation with its 60-100 story apartments and San Francisco is BY Far the most densely populated major city as it has very few high rises just homes smashed up against each other
Sounds like the Bay Area has restricted high rises...
Take Manhattan out of the equation with its 60-100 story apartments and San Francisco is BY Far the most densely populated major city as it has very few high rises just homes smashed up against each other
Sounds like the Bay Area has restricted high rises...
Which means they have little means to alleviate any housing shortage
Which means they have little means to alleviate any housing shortage
Your government at work, making life better...
Which means they have little means to alleviate any housing shortage
The other issue SF faces is there are lots of people in rent controlled apartments which means this housing stock is not subject to normal market dictates and removes it from the market.
As a result there are lot of evictions that make for great class warfare theater
ent controlled apartments
Rent control is great for people taking more space than they would otherwise because the price is so low. It is also great because it gives the landlord no motivation to do maintenance.
Topping. As we all know, SF has busted in the past, and will certainly go busto again someday. Yet, 3 years later, we can now say that this was definitely NOT impeccable timing.
San Francisco tech companies with no earnings and multi billion dollar market caps are partially responsible for the massive increase in housing prices in the bay area.
When the stock market finally collapses there will be massive layoffs and the housing market will nose dive.
Patnet will chronicle it all.
#housing