patrick.net

Seems simple to me. When the rats see the ship sinking, their only goal is to get off as quickly as possible. And if the rats themselves gnawed the hold in the hull that led to the sinking, well then they're in an even greater rush to get off. I'll be waiting for them on land.

I think we'll get a better picture of SD in a few months. This is the beginning of the busy home buying season, especially for families that want to start their kids in school for the fall. It is possible that SD prices might even go up a bit in the summer. However, some of the areas in SD I have been keeping my eye on for possible purchase in 06 or 07 already have negative year over year increases.

It's an interesting bit of human psychology though...just because prices are flat or down a little bit, I start thinking a 500K+ house is a 'good' deal. I wonder how many other families shopping in SD are thinking th same thing. It reminds me of gas prices. A few years ago imagine the outrage if gas prices were $2/gallon...now that would be considered a bargain lol.

CA Home Price Tracker

Check out the above link to take a look at how the year-over-year
appreciation in major CA markets is looking since Jan 2004.

And again these numbers are from DQNews. The credibility
of these numbers is best left to individual readers.

Well, I was just out bid on a house in CT.!! I feel a bit bad. I saw the couple come in after me, baby in arms. The house was listed for 330. There were at least 3 dead on comps in the neighborhood, all with higher assessments, that sold for between 275-295 since January. I offered 290 cash on a 24 hour option contract and figured they'd say no and come back with, "how about . . . ." Instead, the other couple bids just over asking. Of course, I'm guessing, they are mortgaging themselves to the hilt to buy the house, and I'm also guessing that my contract put a lot of artificial pressure on them. Oh well, I predict that the house won't appraise for 300. Think the seller will drop the price 30K to complete the deal? I doubt it - particularly not with AG and all the other rats starting to chirp about lending caution. They're gonna wish they took my offer.

It's impossible to think that some one in AG's position is "politically" allowed to predict the coming of a doom and gloom.
( I am pretty sure he knows it is coming ).

He has been there long enough to have seen the last domestic real
estate bust, and also the Japanese, Hong Kong busts.
There is only so much he can say publicly. Of course he wants
to keep his job. But I think he is laying out the ground work
to not be totally blamed/ scapegoated in the coming year.

I am pretty surprised that he even said several local bubbles exist.
( He did'nt say it will bust, but then again it is called a bubble because
it eventually busts)

He sure is right that the bubbles are local and it would'nt be prudent
to call it a national phenomenon. Nobody ( or at least me) thinks a
bubble exists in the states of AR,KS,ND,SD,MT, LA,MS,AL,SC,NC, WY, UT,
IA, MO, KY, WV, DE,OK. But again as the Presidential Election of 2004
taught us all, anything "National" has to include these states as well.

AG's plan was to give a light bump to housing after the 2001 recession
which would grow the housing, mitigating the effects on the overall economy.
And when the other sectors of the economy recovered in a few years ,
a soft landing of the housing market would be offset.

Well sounds like a good plan, but there is only so much that is under AG's
control. He could'nt stop Asian govt's from hoarding/recycling USD's or
buying US treasuries. I don't know how much he influenced the creation
of GSE's by the Bush Admin, or lowering the lending standards.

Not to speak of the "Borrow And Spend Habits" ,
"Make Your Money Work For You Attitude" and "Greed" of the US
consumer.

I think he had the best possible plan in the given situation , but it's execution was not under his control.

Face Reality,

I agree entirely. The financial analysis of buying versus renting is fairly straight forward. Simply do it and be done with it. I am moving in another three years regardless of what the market does due to family timelines. Buying thus makes no sense.

Of course, when one sees that more than 2/3's of all houses in the Bay Area are being bought with interest-only loans, it seems reasonable to conclude that bad money has chased out the good. And besides, what else are we going to talk about?

Cheerio,
prat

Face Reality (With the Pixies "Where is my Mind" playing in the backgound).

Sure sure, buy and be done with it. If you can afford it into the future. But. But. But you have 15k in credit card debt. But you have an SUV and a leased BMW. But you have no savings. But you have been at your current company for 2 years, and they're not lighting it up in the market place. What you have essentially done, IMO, is strapped yourself to the front of the bus on the bet that the driver stays the course and respectfully uses the brakes. You have no control over the bus. The old theory suggested a 6 month buffer of cash. Most Americans don't have a 6 day buffer of cash. Most Americans don't have a 2 month buffer of credit. Most Americans are on their tiptoes in the deep end of the credit pool. Any increase in that debt level or their ability to pay it, and they're treading water. How long can the average American tread water?

What I see is HUGE overexposure. What I see is an incredible inability of most Americans to weather a storm. And then, like so many fragile wheat stalks in the field, when the storm comes, the hunger will follow.

You wrote, "Some people get lucky, but the odds are against you just like in Vegas casinos."

Well, I think the analogy does not work. It is not "just like" Vegas. If you would like, you can compute the odds of black in Roulette. They will never change. That applies to every game EXCEPT games like poker, where you are aren't betting against fixed odds, but rather where you are betting against the other players. When you see the newb smiling in his chair and smiling from ear to ear after the river card is dealt, IT IS TIME TO FOLD.

And by the way

Face Realty . . .

"The market may flatten and it may fluctuate, but there’s no good way to time it."
I disagree. I just sold. I'm out. If prices flatten or go down in the next year, I timed it perfectly. I've posted previously as to what I used for the timing indicators.

"In the long run you’ll do fine regardless. Ignore this big crash nonsense."

In the long run, meaning 15 years, I agree you'll likely do ok - If you have a reasonable fixed rate and you stay employed.

Just remember, if you ever influence anybody to "ignore" the "nonsense" and they heed your advice to their severe detriment, you will bear some responsbility for any trust they put in you.

Jack,

Like DC, I'm putting my money where my mind is, and liquidating my realestate holdings as soon as possible. We shall see who is right. Of course, I'm always up for a friendly wager. Care to speculate where the market (defined as the average price of a california home) will be in one year? I say 0% or worse real appreciation.

Cheerio,
prat

Jack, here's my logic.

If I sold in DC at the height of the market, then I gain the following . . .

I have owned the more expensive property for the 4.5 years during which it was appreciating at 20% a year. When I dump it, I have essentially pulled out all of the equity that it was going to give me if the market goes flat. If the market goes flat and then later down, well then I clearly am way ahead of the game.

You are 100% correct that I am buying another house, BUT, that house has a sticker that is 1/2 of the one I sold, AND, the price isn't nearly as inflated, IMO, as the DC house. Consequently, even if the CT house suffers from the same flatness or decline, my equity over time is either unchanging or going down at 1/2 the rate.

Further, by selling in a hot market in DC, at the maximum exapansion of the bubble, I got to dictate terms. I received full asking price on the day I put the house on the market. I also got 2 months of free rent back, which not only saved me about 5k in house payments and allowed me to avoid the hassle of the inspection haggling, it also now allows me to waltz into CT and make a cash offer, which is worth about 15k off the asking price, in my opinion.

If I had waited a year and the market goes flat, then the following occurs . . .

I cannot sell my house in one day. We prepped the house and had to have it clean for 1 day. In a down market, it could languish for a month.
I may not get top value.
I would lose $ to an inspection and negotiation.
I would not get the 2 month rent back.
I would not have cash in hand to buy the next house.
I would have to depend on well timed closings to avoid the hassle of having a stopover.

Of course, if the market goes down 10% by next spring, which I certainly think it could, then I lose 60k on this end but only gain 30k on the other end.

We all have to make our own decisions, but I can tell you that I have finally shed the golden handcuffs that a 2500 a month mortgage required, and am I pleased as punch. I hope we sort this out without acute pain, but I don't think we will. And, if the market goes down in the next 12 months, which I think it might, then I'm the cat who swallowed the canary.

In any case, the nervousness I decided to advance the sell date one year is now gone, and I have no worries that a bubble is going to affect me too much. Ergo, I think I made a great decision for my family.

netrugu,

0% real? Or 0% nominal? I agree there will be appreciation. How can there not be when the fed is printing money faster than a coked out hooker is turning tricks? The real question is: is that appreciation, er, real?

Cheerio,
prat

"Real and nominal. It does not matter."

_smile_

Really? I've got some great 20% nominal returns on a bond I'll sell you. The only drawback? It's priced in Praetorian-dollars (PD), which I'm increasing the supply of at 30% per year. Interested?

P, regarding shorting the housing industry, I'm not sure you will find a decent instrument to do so. This is part of the problem with the housing market: there is only one group interested in prices being low, namely buyers. Lenders, Sellers, Agents and the Government all want prices to go up. As housing has changed from a depreciating asset to an investment, we have an emergence of a market with no bears.

If you are in the happy position of owning some real estate, then sell. Otherwise, perhaps short building stocks. But really we just should just bear down, have a beer, and continue to be financially prudent.

ommmmmmmmmmm

Cheerio,
prat

By the way, all you west coasters, I'm absolutely floored about the Cali property tax system. No wonder the state is having financial problems. What a bizarre assessment system.

P: I'm intested. I'm not really looking to get rich - gave that up a few years back as a pursuit fraught with evil - but I am looking to accumulate funds over the next 4 years to pay for kids college and then retire. So, what do I do with the money? If I set up a trust, then I just watch as the 150k I put in in 05 pays for a smaller and smaller portion of the future college expense. Unless, of course, I can get a good return on the money.

So, yes, I'm interested. If not in making a killing, then at least in maintaining whatever cash I have.

I have a domain, and I can devote some space to a page like this. Are there any free progs on the net for discussion groups?

"CASH is what scares ME! Inflation is NOT under control. Everything is going up relentlessly except things from China and Plasma screens!"

True, and something I have struggled with. If I am able to sell my real-estate holdings, I will be heavily weighted towards stocks. I am unclear on the short term (and, if we are in a secular bear market, medium term) prospects of the market. Housing has, historically, been a hedge against inflation, so in a high inflation environment it might be a good investment vehicle for preservation of capital. What makes the current situation so odd is that housing (and energy) *are* the inflation. Normal goods are remaining cheap thanks to our friends in China.

As for other options, inflation indexed bonds may be a good way to go, but, as you point out, certain components of the inflation calculation have been held down while others (housing, energy, you know, unimportant things like that) are ignored entirely in calculating the inflation rate. It is conceivable, therefore, that there is no other perfect option. One wonders how much this is driven by the emergence of the "investor class" in America (and abroad), where a large percentage of the developed world have become investors, flooding the savings market with cash. _shrug_

If you have real estate assets that are 30 years old, which are cash flow positive and which are providing you with a tax shelter, you shouldn't sell, unless you are willing to make a strong bear bet on housing, where the decline will cover transaction costs, etc. I am not in this position, and I am a bit of a gambler, so the choice is easier for me. It is the *buyers* who I would direct my warnings to (right after I sell my holdings, of course), not long-term holders.

As an aside, I view the current situation as the last knife in the back from the baby boomers to my younger generation: they destroyed the culture, abandoned the cities, broke social security, forced us all to pay for their viagra and now are forcing us into indentured servitude for housing. [/rhetorical-flourish]

Cheerio,
prat

"In times of uncertainty gold is good for preserving capital. The physical, funds, mining stocks."

True. I would again mention inflation adjusted bonds. If china floats (or revalues) the yuan, there will be price increases in the US that (finally) make it into the official inflation calculations. Inflation adjusted bonds seem like a good conservative way to preserve (and moderately grow) capital at relatively low risk.

Cheers,
prat

I'm going to set up the subdomain. Worst case scenario, I can use the FrontPage bulletin board, which is suckage, but which is better than nothing.

"Praetorian, inflation adjusted bonds follow some CPI indicators that the government cooks up. True inflation can be a lot higher than what the CPI says. Also, you may have to pay tax on “growth” of the inflation-adjusted principal portion as well. I don’t think any passive asset class is safe anymore."

I agree entirely. Any CPI that doesn't factor in the doubling of housing costs and a huge run-up in energy prices is nearly useless. I only think it will perhaps perform better than other investments, not spectacularly.

I also agree that this is a credit bubble first, and a housing bubble second. We are as one I assure you. Where we perhaps part ways is that I am not a particularly sophisticated investor, and making short plays on the market is something that I don't understand well enough to be comfortable with.

Unfortunately, this make be a situation where unsophisticated investors get eaten. _shrug_ We've got our God and we've got our Golf to see us through...

Cheerio,
prat

amoney:
Good Observation. Thatz true the RE Bubble is the biggest in the
Blue States.
It is "Red Hot" in the "Deep Blue" Bay Area.

Individual markets are all blue with the exception of
San Diego/Orange County and Phoenix.

Even Las Vegas, and South FLorida are blue patches
in red states.

So does this mean Blue voters can't spot a bubble?
Red Voters are smarter to not get themselves into a bubble?

Or are the red states just so boring that nothing really happens
there? No booms, no bust.
Or are the Blue states so desirable that people are outbidding
each other to buy a house there?

Jack, I think you're wrong.

I don't find blue states desirable. I find them packed with idiots who would commit to mortgages they can't afford. I find the culture to be part refreshing and part repulsive. It's only a matter of time til I move to a red state to get away from the intelligensia hoi polloi.

With the acknowledgement that Bush is a borrow and spend liberal, economically, I think the reason the bubble is in red states is one of culture, not one of desirability.

Conservative folks tend to be fiscally conservative and are less likely to overcommit to a house.

Liberal folks don't plan as much, tend to take life as it comes, and consequently are less concerned with whether they can pay back debts.

Just my 2 cents, Jack. I found your take not to be "harsh," as you euphemistically characterized it, but rather to be wrong and whining and partisan and every other reason why I despised John Kerry.

By the way, I'm not a Bush supporter, so don't think for a second I'm defending him - I just see in your response the standard liberal sneering that cost you the last election. Who's moving to California? Mexicans? You think California is "desirable" relative to the rest of the country? Jesus.

By the way, you're going to lose the Supreme Court soon, so get ready with more nastiness about justices who prefer to interpret the Constitution rather than redefine it.

Jack:

The 2000 Census shows a different migration pattern.

It's easier to compare trendz in terms of Congressional
Seats allocated to each state.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census00/HouseAndElectors.html

The Red states AZ,NV,GA,TX,FL had the biggest gains.

The Blue states PA,NY,MI,IL had losses.

CA shows a single gain. It prolly would have been constant if the
census was not held in 2000, the peak of the presence of
dot com workers ( out of country / out of state ) in the Bay Area.
A good chunk of them have since left the Area.

The red states had a net gain of 7 congressional seats
while the blue states had a net loss of 7 seats.

One could possibly argue this is one more reason the bubble
will bust, because prices are not justified by population
migration patterns.

Migration patterns of the last decade suggest a southward migration
pattern into the sunbelt.

Phoenix, Las Vegas had registered 82% and 45% population growth.
Atlanta, and Texas Cities also registered significant numeric increases,
but the growth rate was dwarfed, because of their own sizes.

These cities have little or no geographical boundaries , and can grow
pretty much in all directions. Unlike Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin
which are more or less fully occupied. Las Vegas can double before the
Las Vegas Basin fills up.

These cities have been oversupplied with (new) houses and rental vacancies are high. And I think they will be prime destinations for California Recession Refugees after the RE Bubble Bust.

This may look like over analysis to some folks. But never the less,
facts are facts ( of course some of it is my opinion based on facts).

Escape,

Please. Civil. I agree with nearly everything you said, save the part about not supporting our most entertaining and humble president. However, there is no point in being nasty about it. (I know what I think of your arguments keeps you up at night, tossing and turning: "But what does Prat think of me" you scream as you bolt upright in a cold sweat.)

Cheerio,
prat

"But because space IS limited in the Bay Area is the reason prices stay firmer in a downturn than places like Phoenix or Vegas"

That's not really clear. I live in Palo Alto. There is new construction around here. The inside of the bay is poorly utilized, with a lot of empty commercial space available that could easily be used for housing. San Jose still has plenty of infill room, and condo's are going up like spring flowers.

San Fransicco proper is built out, and is a special case, although I think that it may be in a bubble as well. (Actually, I think SF's problems are Europes: no children. It is a childless city, and it's public services reflect that fact.)

On top of this, the Bay Areas population has been decreasing, wages are stagnant and unemployment is high relative to the rest of the country. _shrug_ Who can explain these things? As soon as my wife and I are done with our current studies that tie us here, we are out.

Best,
prat

Jack:

Desirability of a location has a dollar value attached to it.
People can pay only so much extra for it. If the premium
increases too much, most people get priced out. Then the
premium has to adjust down to a level which can be
sustained.

Bay Area prices are 2.5 times the prices in the sun belt.
I am not sure desirability of Bay Area demands that kind
of premium. Median in Atlanta is 200K, in Bay Area it
is 500K.

Again these numbers are from a source which reports
these numbers for both the places
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv4.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=579825&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=162679

And Bay Area Median house is much smaller than the
one in Atlanta.

Another way to look at these premiums is an oceanfront
property and a similar inland property in Los Angeles.
How much premium would one pay for the oceanfront?
Definitely not 250%, at least not me.

I think a 20-50% premium over Atlanta (or for even the ocean front
in LA ) should account for the desirability factor. Anything more
would be artificial , and creates a bubble.

Secondly Bay Area population has decreased since 2000, but the prices
have nearly doubled since then. Which again is in dire conflict
with the demand-supply equation. Can mean only one thing,
this demand is artificial and not supported by fundamentals.

And again desirability is such a subjective criteria. A person who
wants to have a big backyard in his house, Atlanta is more desirable.

Did'nt we all in Bay Area think Bush would lose. But he won by 3 million
votes. Point in case, there are other's who can think differently than
you and me, and they cannot be simply just written off.

The premium for Bay Area house has increased so much that
only 13% residents could afford a house, as compared to 20%
just a few months ago.

With as many 87% of the people priced out of the housing market,
these levels of desirability premium are just not sustainable.

Prat, I couldn't sleep at all last night! First I was tossing, then I was turning. Awful stuff.

Anyway, OK, I'm going to do my best to be civil.

If all the Bay area folks here have "Cali Pride" or something like that, then I suggest you don't read any further. As for me, I don't have pride in any state, and I don't have a lot of pride in this country, either. I think pride is a silly emotion that causes many of our problems.

When I said "who finds California desirable, Mexicans?" I certainly was not attempting to be disrespectful to Mexicans. I have no issues with any person based on his/her country of origin. I can say that I have found that I dislike a greater percentage of folks from some countries. As for the Mexicans comment, I said it only to highlight what a later posted wrote - that the net migration to Cali, I'd suspect, is either not huge or comprises, significantly, illegal immigrants.

Jack, I dislike Bush almost as much as I dislike Kerry, so please recognize me as not part of the loyal opposition.

How did 1 in 8 folks end up in Cali? How is that relevant? There are 1 billion in china, but that doesn't make it desirable.

Laws start in Cali? Really, like what? Like the legislation that was tabled that would have, if passed, limited the number of overachieving Asians who get into the state university system?

Jack, you could be held up as an exemplar for the reason the liberals have been getting wiped out in national elections. I remember prior to Bush's 2nd term talking to my liberal aquiantances who thought Kerry would win. I thought they were misreading the situation. But that seems to be the norm for folks who view the world from that perspective.

I understand the right in this country. Their agenda is clear, and how they are going to get there is clear.

I do not understand the left. It's like watching a boxer (Barbara?) come back to his corner every round after getting demolished and listening to him tell the cornerman, "I think I got him where I want him." Worse, no change is being made.

This all ties in to california, because it is only the electoral college votes of California that is keeping the elections close.

You want to know what most people outside of californians who I have met think of cali?

I quote the eminent comedian Gallagher, who said, "Cali is like a bowl of cereal - what ain't fruits and nuts is flakes." By the way, I have not problem with anybody based on their sexual orientation, so save it.

In short, then, most people I have met don't view Cali as the leader of trends in the US, but rather as the leader of the trend down the toilet. And how is Cali's fiscal situation? Anybody want to comment on that?

I could write five pages on this, but I won't. Jack, I encourage you to consider how the right views your world - you may find it useful during the next election cycle.

Finally, I think the most egregious error in Jack's thinking is that red states are the past. This thinking is dangerous to liberal prospects. If all the time since the midterms of Clinton I's presidency have shown anything, it's that the country has undergone a major shift past the center to the right. The red states are the trend, and if the economy gets severe, beleive me that liberalism will be suppressed in response, and the conservative folk's mantra will ring even truer. The only hope on the horizon for the left is, in one word, Hillary. Ironically, the folks on the right with whom I have chatted think she's not electable. This is ironic because she is not only electable, she is the favorite, IMO. The right is going to let it's hatred of her foolishly camoflage the truth. How liberal of them!.

That's it, I hope that wasn't too uncivil. I love you as a person Jack.

I lived in LA pretty much my whole life until we moved to PA 2 years ago. I do see migration into CA, but not among the type of people that buy 750K homes. The increase in population is a mix from south of the border and kids right out of high school or college looking to party or be famous. If you lived in another state and got two job offers for $100K (sorry if I'm insulting some of you with the low amount ;) ), one in CA and one somewhere with low housing costs, where would you go? I think the vast majority would go somewhere w/ low housing costs. I couldn't imagine anyone with children wanting to go to LA unless they were very wealthy because homes in the few decent school districts start at $750 (for a dump) or else you have to send the kids to private school. And my observation w/ people here in PA is that many of them would like the idea of living in CA, but when they hear about the home prices their jaws drop to the floor and they say they're happy where they are.

Jack, interesting take on it.

Group hug [[[[ ]]]]]]

Hey Bubble Boy, you must be a boy if you don't remember the RE market crashing in the late 80s. BTW, several of us do own property or just recently sold property, so we not only got on the train, but got off right before it burst into flames...enjoy the ride :)

Bubble Boy, you smell like Fake P.

I just saw some of the best evidence of a bubble I have seen to date.

On,? The People's Court.

Guy mentions to neighbor, who he doesn't know, that he wants to buy a property but he's 158 on the waiting list. Stranger neighbor says if you give me 5k I know a woman who will get you to the front of the list. Guy gives neighbor 5k. Guy gets to front of list to find out that the house is 90k more expensive. Guy wants money back. No can do. Sue. Brilliant.

Wasn't it Joe Kennedy who got out of stocks a week before the 29 crash because he was getting a shoe shine and he heard the shoe shine boy giving advice on which stocks to buy?

BB, I personally purchased a condo in 1997 for $165K that had sold in 1991 (at the very tail end of the 80s crash) for $250K (exact same condo). This was the typical price fall in the area of Los Angeles that I was buying in & more than 10-20 percent.

Ooops, I meant 80s peak, not crash.

I worked with a guy in CT in 1992ish who had bought at the peak in the late 80s and didn't have enough equity to sell. Worse for him, he wanted desperately to move. Oh yes, a 10% decline in housing is going to cause a catalytic crash. Why?

Because Mr. and Mrs. Fat American with their heads up their arses are not going to be deterred from their consumption by anything until their fake equity dematerializes. At that point, they will slowly turn away from the plasma tv while slowly putting down their half eaten snickers bars. They will make eye contact. Their mouths will be agape. And, horrifyingly, the realization will hit them that the only thing more overextended than their waist lines is there finances. And the words Holy Shiite will be seen to form upon their lips. And they will know fear. And then they will look around and see that the things they have wasted their money on - the credit they institutionalized with the last 2 refis - have little value. They will recognize that their debt is virtually insurmountable and,

HUSH,

THEY WILL STOP BUYING CRAP.

And when that happens, get your googles on, because the crap is gonna fly.

NetGuru wrote, "Wow DC….you just sold your house for a gazillion more dollars than you bought it for. Why are you in such a bad mood?"

Well, mostly because I'm going to have to deal with the fallout. It's my libertarian perspective. I don't give too much of a crap what people do, as long as it doesn't affect me. But it bugs me when I know my taxes are going to go up to cover all the losses that will occur.

Heads up.

I just spoke with my former Realtor. He indicated that he is now telling clients in the DC market he works that the goal is to "sell your house within 30 days." For the last two years, at least, the goal was to sell it in a day.

Anecdotally, I have noticed a slew of houses come on the market. On my street, which has barely a score of houses, the fourth house in four months just went on sale. Unbelievable.

"I believe that in a society, everyone could work to profit together."

_smile_

And there, my trollish friend, is the rub.

No society ever got wealthy by trading pieces of paper with one another at a feverish rate. Society gets wealthy by, wait for it, producing wealth. The current market fevers really *are* a zero sum game: people exiting the market are taking money from people entering it. This is why I am exiting it. Perhaps in a few years I shall reenter it, if buying again becomes financially prudent. But right now the rent vs. buy numbers just aren't there.

I admire your commitment to capitalism, but todays credit driven economy is not capitalist. It is fantasy.

Perhaps I am wrong. and you shall get to rub my nose in it. But this is my honest and reasoned position.

Cheerio,
prat

Another anecdotal bit of evidence that a crash will soon be upon us . . .

I'm listening to the radio tonight and I hear an add for a real estate course. The standard huckster crap that has sprung up in the last 12 months. Come to us and we'll teach you how to make money in the real estate market.

The difference? This ad specifically said, "yes, THAT'S RIGHT, you can use your 401k money to invest in real estate."

When folks start tapping into their 401ks to buy houses in the DC bubble, man, that's gotta be a bad sign.

P:

You are welcome. The crash would start in the San Diego and/or
Las Vegas Markets. DQNews is a consistent source to track CA home prices.

I posted a link in an earlier post which tracks year-over-year appreciation in CA Markets.
The next few months in SD market will pretty much turn the tide.
I think Las Vegas is several months ahead in this cycle. What we are
seeing in SD now, started happenning in LV in Oct 2004.

But getting any kind of data from LV has been a challenge.
Which ever market gets the media's attention first, will trigger the
panic selling in other markets.

And yes I do agree that Bay Area's price correction will be much
more severe than anywhere else. Most other local bubbles are
5 yrs old, but BA has a 10 yr old expanding housing bubble.

The prices will fall back to 95-96 levels, adjusted for inflation.
The near 100% appreciation of the last 5yrs will definitely be
wiped out. That accounts for a near 50% drop. Then the appreciation
of late 90's will account for another 10-20%. So 50 to 65% drop
in the next few years is about right.

Those who think it is too big to happen, Nasdaq lost nearly 80%
of its peak value, and is now stable at about 40% of its peak.

_____________________________

Jack:

2000 - 1 in 8 Americans lived in CA
2005 - 1 in 8 Americans lives in CA, 7 out of 8 still dont live in CA.

If in 2005, 1 in 5 Americans were living in CA, it could possibly
explain a demand driven appreciation. But that's not the case, it is an expectation driven appreciation, which is essentially a bubble.

I can agree to a 100% premium over North Dakota,
but not 100% over Atlanta.

______________________________

DC

I witnessed another anecdotal evidence that this is gonna crash
sooner than later.
As I walked back home I saw a Home Ownership Fair on a public park.
Every lender Bank in the area had a table there , giving information about
how to buy a house.
About 100 people seated in a tent were listening to a speaker
who was explaining things about home ownership.

When commodities of over half million are being marketed like
$3 hotdogs on a weekend afternoon.
The end is pretty near and clear.

"If not why are you misleading people with something that you are not sure of?"

For sport, mainly. Seems like its working.

Deep breaths my boy, and repeat after me:

Prudence, prudence, prudence.

I offer this to assist you:

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/MortgageRentvsBuy.html

All the best,
prat

Mr. Mike wrote - " I feel that I am lucky to still have a job."

If more people felt like you, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Last week I ordered two sets of checks after I opened a new account.

One set of checks came with the wrong info on it, the other was "held" because they couldn't figure out that I sent one fax with two cancelled checks on it. As for the checking account, an ATM card was never ordered by the account opener. Why? Because these people do not "feel lucky to have a job." They think they're getting screwed.

Fake P - I appreciate your input. I don't understand it.

1st, I already stated I feel bad for the greedy pigs, but I won't lose any sleep over it. People should be responsible for what they decide.

2nd, I haven't figured out how to make money off a housing fall, and I'm not looking to get rich, anyway.

I'm talking about it the same way I talk about gene therapy - I think they're both interesting and both going to happen soon.

Interesting line from today's 'lead' story at yahoo finance about record setting home sales:

"By region, sales were up 7 percent in the South, 5.8 percent in the Midwest and 4.3 percent in the Northeast. They were unchanged in the West last month."

Think the speculators have left CA in search of greener pastures? I know the bay area is still on the upswing, but this leaves me feeling like so cal has definitely stalled.

Well Mike, i own a home. At least I have entered into a contract to own a home. And I do mean I will own it. It's great and it sucks.

I can't stop reading stuff. I haven't been this motivated to read since I was I was 50 pages into Atlas Shrugged, and before that, since I first started to figure out the molecular nature of cells. I've just read for 3 hours on line about various gold issues.

I found out that Roosevelt confiscated all privately held gold in 1933.

How is it that a man who most would describe as well educated has never heard of this? I am sadened by my ignorance. I am frightened when I consider how simple most Americans are.

I feel sadened by my pathetic education. I have four college degrees, including two graduate degrees, and not once was I exposed to any kind of education about the gold standard, fiat money, the Federal Reserve, etcetera. I'm embarrassed at myself for being so immature through the first 35 years of my life that I haven't had the inclination to examine my government's history more closely.

Wow. It's going to be tough to get any work done over the next few weeks.

It's time. It really is. Everything before was only the staging. The act begins soon. We, who have lived in the grandest cornucopia - albeit falsely purchased - will now face the product of our doings.