patrick.net

just me,

I don't think such ranting is going to "win" anything on a web page called "Housing Crash Forum" except possibly win some legitimacy away from the housing bulls side.

Stream of consciousness, all we need now is some rap music and a good rapper and we've got a superstar

Please don’t lie about what I say here.
I consider their data useless now
decline is so small that it can hardly be seen on the graph
10 year data is flawed?

Unfortunately you failed to take the opportunity
to make any point whatsoever.

I proved Case-Shiller data must be wrong.
totally and irrefutably useless. A 50% deviation is
shocking result

deviation is a joke
data shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I offered you opportunity for redemption.
almost totally devoid of any support
for any of your assertions
on the housing market.
What exactly can you present ?

Boom-chika-boom-chika-boom-boom-BOOM!

tatupu70 says

justme says

The purpose of discussion is to FIND THE RIGHT ANSWER. Discussion for the sake of disagreement is just a waste of time

What you meant was “the purpose of the discussion is to FIND THE ANSWER THAT AGREES WITH MY OPINION”

It might possibly be a good time to go and look up the term "psychological projection" on wikipedia.

justme--

My point was that you are a little presumptous to think that you KNOW the RIGHT answer to an unanswerable question. Will house prices continue to drop? You can have your opinion, but it's not "right" or "wrong", it's just your best guess.

It may be right--time will tell...

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14413694?source=patrick.net&nclick_check=1

After taking a break for the holidays, foreclosures spiked in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties in January.

Despite efforts by the federal government and lenders to help people stay in their homes, foreclosures rose 37 percent in Santa Clara County last month from December, and 71 percent in San Mateo County, according to a report Tuesday from ForeclosureRadar.

azrob,

I think that here in the Bay Area, except for an enclave called The Fortress where wealthy immigrants use cash, most homes are bought with borrowed money. That would include, even speculators who call themselves "investors" (actually, I suppose the lender is the "investor" in those cases).

Well you will probably not be surprised to read in Evans-Pritchard's article in today's Telegraph that borrowing is drying up in the USA, here is the link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7259323/US-bank-lending-falls-at-fastest-rate-in-history.html

@E-man,

Setting aside my disagreement on some opinions in this tread, I am kind of wondering where those data in the article come from since CNN does not specify anything about it.

To me, the numbers are median home price of those cities and the percentages are price level dropped from the peak years. You may able to see the same too.

If so, this article is just showing us what city got hit hard and what city is doing ok. It can not be used to determine if a certain area undervalued or overvalued. Thus, it is silly for us to debate on that article from the begining.

What do you think?

azrob00 says

Why is my still having one rental property a joke? i had six properties, and sold 4 of them. Its called hedging, you never know, the US could throw the dollar completely under the bus instead, and not let prices fall due to rampant inflation

You completely missed his point. 1 property doesn't prove any theory. It's a sample size issue--that's why he referenced you using statistics before using your 1 rental as evidence.

tatupu70,

>> No, you’ve done a little more than that. Here’s the post I was refering to…

Have I really? What I stated was

>The purpose of discussion is to FIND THE RIGHT ANSWER. Discussion for the sake of disagreement is just a waste of time.

It should be clear that you are mis-reading my statement,

Eliminating logically flawed or otherwise errant arguments is an important part of the process of establishing the right answer. Such elimination is ALL I have done in this thread.

Ready to retract?

WOG,

>>Ready to retract?

Hell no. Here is what you said, further up in this very thread:

>> Here’s a link to the U.S. Census data tables on house prices. EVERY SINGLE DECADE from 1940 onward shows significant appreciation for homes for BOTH nominal values and inflation adjusted values.

Here is an excerpt of the census data you referred to

Year 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940
California $211,500 $249,800 $167,300 $88,700 $74,400 $57,900 $36,700

Could it be more clear that from 1990 to 2000 there was a (big) drop in inflation adjusted values? Are you going to deny it again? Are your delusions never-ending?

You said EVERY SINGLE DECADE. So I looked at every single decade and found several, in particular one in California, were your assertion was false.

Now you want to exclude California data from consideration and pretend it is not there.
And this on the thread about "Bay Area Home values", no less. "oh, no, Sir, I was referring only to LINE ONE of the table, Sir".

Your semantic games are not going to save you.

>> DUH!!!!! I linked the data!!!!!

Yeah, you linked the data. You just picked ONE line from the data (without stating that this is what you did), and then you neglected to understand what the rest of the data said. And now you are playing semantic games.

You're a QUACK!

justme says

tatupu70,
>> No, you’ve done a little more than that. Here’s the post I was refering to…
Have I really? What I stated was
>The purpose of discussion is to FIND THE RIGHT ANSWER. Discussion for the sake of disagreement is just a waste of time.
It should be clear that you are mis-reading my statement,
Eliminating logically flawed or otherwise errant arguments is an important part of the process of establishing the right answer. Such elimination is ALL I have done in this thread.
Ready to retract?

I'm ready to laugh... if that helps. You can spin it however you like, but I think my point was made. Clearly you wanted end any healthy debate on the issue.

LOL! just love your back-peddling!

Infallible Word of God

tatupu70 says

According to the graph you yourself posted, there is a net increase in population in SF since 1950. And I’ve yet to see any evidence of prices “plunging” during that time period. Care to post something backing up that claim?
And yet you continue to post that others are in error?

So what happened in 1950 to 1980, some three decades? population declined and so did prices. Im sorry you were unaware of the hippie boom and the social unreset in the 60s the early 70s centered in the city of SF but all that drove many out and into the burbs. Did you think those left wing Marxist in the 60s had deep pockets of money or a job that fueled higher home prices. There were plenty of abondoned homes back than. But that has been well known around here for decades.

Trying to rewrite history is foolish.

Yes, prices rose post 1980 as the economy expanded. But even comparing 1950 to today.. an increase of some 25,000 over a 50 year period is laughable! WOW WHAT A TREND!!!!

Guys,

I think the question E-man wrote was asking if Bay Area Homes are undervalued?, not the demographic trend of 1950-1980 SF.

Not sure what he means by "undervalued", maybe he is referring to the tax assessments. Of course some properties that were inherited are undervalued but that is because of proposition-13. Also if some homes didn't change ownership for a long time they are undervalued in the assessment.

But there's also a lot of the underwater homes that are overvalued. That is a big loss of revenue.

Proposition-13 was supposed to help homeowners to stay in their homes, particularly senior citizens and cash strapped working class homeowners. But not landlords. Probably we need to repeal prop-13 and make it for primary residence only.

thomas.wong1986 says

So what happened in 1950 to 1980, some three decades? population declined and so did prices. Im sorry you were unaware of the hippie boom and the social unreset in the 60s the early 70s centered in the city of SF but all that drove many out and into the burbs. Did you think those left wing Marxist in the 60s had deep pockets of money or a job that fueled higher home prices. There were plenty of abondoned homes back than. But that has been well known around here for decades.
Trying to rewrite history is foolish.
Yes, prices rose post 1980 as the economy expanded. But even comparing 1950 to today.. an increase of some 25,000 over a 50 year period is laughable! WOW WHAT A TREND!!!!

Still waiting for any evidence of a price decline from 1950 to 1980.

tatupu70 says

Still waiting for any evidence of a price decline from 1950 to 1980.

You really have no idea, do you?

thomas.wong1986 says

You really have no idea, do you?

I think I do actually. I'm just wondering if you do...

LOL! I gave you the answer, did you read it or flunk history? Would you find it desireable to be living anywhere near the beatnicks, hippies and freaks who came into SF? Increase in crime and drug orgies didnt make SF all that desireable. There was certainly lots of blight, failed business and prices fell as people left for the burbs. Common knowledge around here.

thomas.wong1986 says

LOL! I gave you the answer, did you read it or flunk history? Would you find it desireable to be living anywhere near the beatnicks, hippies and freaks who came into SF? Increase in crime and drug orgies didnt make SF all that desireable. There was certainly lots of blight, failed business and prices fell as people left for the burbs. Common knowledge around here.

OK--I think you need a refresher on what is considered evidence. None of what you wrote above is evidence. Saying "common knowledge" does not qualify. How about you present actual numbers. ie Ave. house price in 1950 was XXX and in 1980 it was XXX. For someone who works with numbers every day, you seem to have a strong aversion to putting any in your posts...