True, but it takes a few transactions to make a new price level. Proud owners may stick to their reserve prices, but they may not be able to sell either.
Bingo. I once found a stat on what % of total homes turn over each year on average. Can't recall the exact figure, but I'm positive it was a single digit number. All it takes is a few thousand panicked amateur "investors" with high burn-rates in each city, all heading for the exits at the same time to really turn the market upside-down. Whether or not most other non-motivated owners decide to stick to their reserve prices really won't matter.
I don't know about 50% by Dec 2007, though --that's pretty optimistic (or is it 'pessimistic'?)
"I thought you can use financial software development as experience only if you had registered before 2005 or so. I will check. Thanks!
(I used to work on some financial reporting tools, not sure if it counts)" --Peter P
I'm not sure if "pure" Dev work counts for the charter even if you're building a purely financial reporting program. What DOES count is implementing and servicing a software solution for any financial institutution. For example, the company I currently work for makes software platforms that run the gamut from hedge fund management solutions to pure reporting solutions for small independant RIA's. We also offer out-sourced solutions for almost all of our software contracts whereby we will install, run, and maintain the software as well as all of the financial firms proprietary data. It is this kind of software servicing that does count as work experience for the charter because it is lumped into the "financial services."
So my advice to you would be to use your Development experience along with the CFA to move toward a more financially-oriented software company. There are a lot of them. And the key is that you don't want to do purely Dev work, you will also need to get your hands a bit dirtier and delve into operations and/or consulting.
Trust me, there is a LOT of demand for people who have finance knowlege and Dev knowledge. In my experience most folks are one or the other, i.e. most programmers don't know jack about finance, and most folks who have CFA's and/or MBA's don't know jack about code. If you have knowlege of both you will be putting yourself in a very good position IMHO.
The ATM is closing down 45%. The ecomony will die. Alan Greenspan state that $700bn was contributed to the 2005 from MEWs (Mortgage Equity Withdrawals, ie refi's, HELOC's, etc).
Freddie Mac reports that as interest-rates rise, prime borrowers (those with the best credit) are taking out fewer cash-out refinances.The volume of cash-out refis from prime mortgages is expected to drop to $114.5 billion this year from a record $204 billion in 2005. This year’s expected level is similar to 2002 levels, according to Freddie Mac.
I may have the distinction of being the only person on this blog that is BOTH a bitter renter and bitter homeowner!
You're at least 1 of 2. But then again, I'm just generally bitter. I reject the notion that anyone "earns" equity. It's not like they actually did anything to earn it (and spare me the risk-reward arguments, they don't hold up under a fair analysis). I gained quite a bit in equity appreciation 1990-2004. You'll never hear me brag about it; it was nothing more than luck. I could have been born 20 years earlier or later and had different outcomes with the same inputs. For this, I am humble (and I eschew veiled bragging as we saw earlier in this thread).
Some info why high oil prices actually help us long-term.
Another case where I agree with Jeffolie. The author of this Futurist piece could use a first-principles lesson in macroeconomics. Some facts, the US only imports roughly 20% of its crude stock from the "Middle East", but prices for the entire world crude market are set by global markets, not the US' direct imports from Iran, Iraq, Saudi, etc.
Without getting overly technical, think of it like this. Can the US (go ahead and even add in the EU, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc.) reduce their crude demand faster than China, India et. al. increase demand? Layer on this they aren't making any more oil, so the cost to extract each marginal barrel increases.
This is bad for the US no matter where we fall in the equation. It portends a global economic recession and stagflation.
The US economy barely grew in the fouth quarter, at a 1.1% annualized rate. Energy prices will be deadly to manufacturing (here and elsewhere) :
"The factory sector is battling higher energy prices but the expansion is still intact, leading some analysts to believe its resilience could give the Federal Reserve another reason to keep raising interest rates, after Tuesday's 14th consecutive rate increase."
"The Institute for Supply Management said its index of manufacturing activity fell to 54.8 in January, from December's 55.6 reading."
"Rising oil prices could squeeze manufacturers' profit margins in the coming months and two regional reports last week showed the sector may be losing steam as a result."
"This is bad for the US no matter where we fall in the equation. It portends a global economic recession and stagflation." --Randy H
I do recall from Economic history classes that every single large energy price spike in recorded history has been followed by a recession in the affected economy within 1 year. In the current year, it is the world economy that will go into recession.
However, I do agree with the authors premise that the high oil prices will (finally) stimulate further R&D into alternative energy and that the high oil prices will (finally) make said alternative energy sources cost-competitive. This is the basic permise of environmental economics (i.e. the eononmics of limited natural resources).
Even The Shrub is right that it is high time that America weans itself off the foreign oil teat. Of course, The Shrub's administration favored an "energy policy that encourages consumption" in Bush's own words when he first came into power. How shocking that that policy resulted in increased oil prices! At least The Shrub has finally admitted a mistake, albeit indirectly.
Higher energy prices, no matter the source (alternative energies have even higher per unit total costs, in most cases, than crude...we use crude for the very reason it is cost efficient). Rising energy prices cause global inflation.
However, I do agree with the authors premise that the high oil prices will (finally) stimulate further R&D into alternative energy
This is a truism that no one denies. But the devil is in the details. There exists only one rational form of alternative energy that is cost efficient, and even it would require *massive* infrastructure capital investment, over many decades, to make a dent in the existing fossil fuel economy. That is nuclear. I don't see anything beyond political posturing in this vein, though.
Conversion to "green" energies will require centuries of R&D and infrastructure. Keep in mind that energy storage does not equal alternative energy production. Nuclear production will require things like hydrogen fuel cells, superconductivity transmission, not to mention new generation waste recyling and storage to make it cost efficient. The folks who tout wind and solar as any solution are simply wrong. The numbers don't add up. Most of them belong on late-nite AM radio talk shows (where you usually find them).
High energy prices in Europe have not created viable alternatives. In Briton where gas goes for something like $5 a gallon, where are the alternative energy sources breakthroughs that make a real difference?
Alternatives are pie ala mode for the future. Pie in the sky will not run our industries now or in the intermediate future.
For definition on Internet Troll, see my above post from January 31st, 2006 at 3:22 pm.
I agree that bubble-myopia has induced a pollyanna-ish inability to connect reason to what they see around them. But this is the way it has always been during every asset bubble, from the Dutch Tulip Bubble, to the South Sea Bubble, to Dot.com to now. Speculative euphoria takes hold of the collective psyche in a way that mystifies non-believers.
For some good in depth analysis, I recommend "Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation", "A Short History of Financial Euphoria" and Shiller's "Irrational Exuberance".
In Briton where gas goes for something like $5 a gallon, where are the alternative energy sources breakthroughs that make a real difference?
I read (in the Eonomist?) a couple years back a study that showed that, if you exclude Nuclear (the renewed interest in Nuclear had not appeared at the time of the study), the price point for gasoline would need to be something close to $28/US Gallon to make non-nuke alternatives cost efficient. I forget the analysis including nuke, but it was below $10 per gallon.
I'm no Euro-phile, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Europe get a lot more of their energy (esp. electricity) from alternative sources, inlcuding nuclear? I've seen stats that say France is getting 75% of their electricity from nuclear alone.
Agree with you in general about taxes skewing the costs, though. If it costs $1.60 a gallon for producers to bring gas to the market, then that's the baseline that alternative fuels must match or beat. Of course, European governments have also known to heavily subsidize said alternative fuels, which would skew that baseline somewhat.
Real Estate bubbles do bust. It is not naive to review recent events:
December 1996: The IMF praises the Thai Government’s ‘consistent record for sound macro-economic management policies’.
July-1997: Thai property companies get into difficulties after a real-estate bubble bursts, wiping a third of the value off the stock market and leading to the collapse of the banks which backed them. Foreign investors lose confidence and start pulling out. The Thai currency’s peg to the dollar wobbles. Currency speculators move in for a killing. The Thai baht is floated and the currencies of the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and South Korea also suffer. A wave of devaluations follow, triggering a massive haemorrhage of funds as panicky foreign investors sell up their stocks and bonds. The economies of Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea and the Philippines go into free fall.
December 1997: By now millions are without work and decades of social and economic progress have been thrown into reverse. Of 282 firms on the Indonesian stock market only 22 are technically solvent.
So my advice to you would be to use your Development experience along with the CFA to move toward a more financially-oriented software company. There are a lot of them. And the key is that you don’t want to do purely Dev work, you will also need to get your hands a bit dirtier and delve into operations and/or consulting.
SFRenter, thanks for your advice. I will look into it. :)
I’m no Euro-phile, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Europe get a lot more of their energy (esp. electricity) from alternative sources, inlcuding nuclear? I’ve seen stats that say France is getting 75% of their electricity from nuclear alone.
France is an exception within Europe (excluding Russia). They are the modern-world leaders in nuclear energy, and they continue to support its further development widely. They, for some reason, established a strong cultural acceptance whereas everywhere else (US included) developed a strong revulsion against nuclear.
Germany, for example, is executing a plan to decomission all nuke power within the next 20-25 years. This is *very* popular amongst the people. Even the recent natural gas crises caused by Russia has not jolted the German people into reconsidering shutting off their only alternative. In fact, when their energy minister suggested a delay in the plan, there was a near revolt within his own party (and these are the conservatives).
Europe does have much more advanced wind energy. But this isn't even 2% of the production in Germany (when I last read). Some smaller countries produce more from wind, but they're *small*, we're not, nor is Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, etc.
Add to that the popular sport of "demonizing" nuclear power here in the US. Hell, I walked past my wife Tivoing "The West Wing" last week and I almost wrenched to see yet another big bad nuclear boggyman disguised as entertainment piece. If nuclear power is so dangerous, then statistically why aren't all the French dead, given the density of nuclear reactors is 10,000X that here in the US?