patrick.net

Speaking of Realtors (tm), looks like the johnny-come-lately types in their ranks (like ConfusedRealtor) are screwed:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/07/real_estate/brokers_experience/index.htm?postversion=2006110716

"Real estate: Babes in bear land"

Most Realtors haven't been in the business long enough to see anything but a boom market, and the current slump is new to all but a handful of industry veterans.

Great housing article just posted on CNN:

Real estate: Babes in bear land
Most Realtors haven't been in the business long enough to see anything but a boom market, and the current slump is new to all but a handful of industry veterans.

Just more than half of members of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) had four years or less of experience in a 2005 survey - which means they came into this year's real estate downturn knowing nothing but boom times.

..."If you're able to make $100,000 selling a house rather than $50,000 everyone and their cousin wants to be a broker," he said. "All that demand to be brokers is caused by the fact that the commission structure is fixed. Commissions should be plummeting from 6 to 4 to 2 percent because it's not."

Hey HARM,

Looks like we both posted links to that article at about the same time. Great article, eh? Relatively non-NAR cheerleader-ish, although their commentary is from that REIC shill masquerading as an academic, Nicholas Restinas.

"why?"

exhibit 1: Bernard Kerik

exhibit 2: Guiliani Partners

exhibit 3: how he hooked up with the current missus

He's plenty corrupt. I prefer Spitzer or even Pataki over Guiliani.

@astrid,

I tend to agree about his (lack of) moral compass. He seems to me like an opportunist who happened to be at the right place at the right time (NYC, 9/11). I will say that he did appear to do a good job with reducing crime in NYC during his tenure, although I always wonder how much of that was secondary to a good overall (national) economy and its effect on reducing crime and general discontent during the 90's.

I will say that he did appear to do a good job with reducing crime in NYC during his tenure, although I always wonder how much of that was secondary to a good overall (national) economy and its effect on reducing crime and general discontent during the 90’s.

Right before September 11th though, Rudy's popularity was definitely on the wane. The series of police shootings/raping-with-a-broomstick really left a mark.

As a New York-American I found what Ray Nagin had to say (comparing Katrina to September 11th) offensive - but to some degree he was right. September 11th happened, and then it was over. New Orleans drowned.

Very mixed feelings.

I once asked her, “so it has been a booming market ever since, right?” She didn’t get my subtle dig, and actually took it as a compliment - as if I was actually saying she was personally responsible for the good times. Ye Olde Compleat Twit.

@SP,

Oh yeah, I do fondly recall your "Main Street Media" story from many threads back. That was a good one. God forbid she loses the Bimmer SUV.

He’s plenty corrupt. I prefer Spitzer or even Pataki over Guiliani.

Pataki only got his job because people wanted a change (Cuomo had been around too long) and Alfonse did a great job.

Pataki was always this bland kind of guy that only Upstate could like.

Rudy, on the other hand, is shady (his marital life is a great example) and the fact that he now stumps at Fundie places is also shady. But that shadiness is something to be respected. :)

eburbed,

Yes, and I would respect that shadiness more, but only if he was a mobster and not the ex-mayor of arguably the greatest city on Earth today.

Guliani is a scumbag. I’d much rather have a president Mike Bloomberg.

Respectfully disagree. NYC certainly cleaned up and attracted more investment under his leadership, although he managed to alienate a large chunk of the Black community. On 9/11, Guliani showed true leadership under fire. He didn't have the deer-in-the-headlights look of another important authority figure.

although I always wonder how much of that was secondary to a good overall (national) economy and its effect on reducing crime and general discontent during the 90’s

He busted the squeegie guys. That alone is enough to endorse him. ;-) The notion that small crimes lead to larger crimes, if not his, was at least put on the map by him.

Of course, if you extrapolate this policy to other nations, you'll probably be picking a lot of fights; it does sounds familiar...

Democrats or GOPs are both scumbags. Nobody has a plan for whatever deep doo doo we are in. Most of the ads dollars are spent on demonizing the opponent rather than promoting one's plan, if he has any.

Nevertheless, Bush is the biggest idiot of them all. But I'd like to see Republicans retaining the current control so that Bush will have NOBODY to blame when Iraq eventually blows right up in his face. Also, I would like to see him keep spending like mad, because I don't have patience for a drawn-out slow-motion deflating, I want to see it crash hard.

Don't stop the cart right before it goes off the cliff, it is just going to prolong the pain trying to pull it back before it succumbs to the inevitable fate. Just run it into the ground spectacularly so that we all get it over with.

OO,

While I understand your irritation, we're talking about suffering and death for a lot of people if the present administration's momentum isn't broken.

A bipartisan legislature is an ineffecient mechanism, to be sure, and I think most - or anyway some of us are under no delusions as to the dawning of a bright new day. But I take some comfort that the likes of Nancy Pelosi will be a part of our future and that K. Harris will not.

The Green Party here has a very good affordable housing policy, and they are attracting more and more of the vote each year -- around 10% now. They are attractive to voters for other reasons than housing tho -- and now the main parties are poaching their policies as global warming and drought seem to be more of a reality...

I voted today, but my expectations are always low. I think no politican (D or R) wants to address the large purple gorilla in the middle of the room, the housing bubble being but a facet: the ginormous public and private debt we seem to run the economy on. Let's just keep driving to the edge of the cliff instead.

Oh, snap! Inefficient.

OO's point about Republicans maintaining control of Congress is not necessarily a bad one. I've read a few MSM (main-STREAM media ;-) ) op-eds that more-or-less argued the exact same thing.

Personally, I have to wonder why the Democrats would even WANT to win this one (with the possible exception of dispelling the perception that they can't win an election). If Dem's win control of the House and REIC-based economy (and foreign policy) implodes in our faces, they will share some of the blame. If they win control of both House & Senate, they might get ALL of the blame.

The general public doesn't have an inkling of even the basic root causes of the RE/credit bubble, so they will reflexively blame/punish whoever happens to be "in power" at the moment. So, if I were a Democrat (disclaimer: neither R or D), I would badly want to LOSE this puppy.

That's why I won't vote in this election.

"main street media"

@Different Sean,

What do you call those again?

I know most of you guys live on that other coast, but it’s Giuliani, not Guiliani, OK?

I originally used "Rudy" because I didn't know the correct spelling. ;-)

What's up with everyone wanting the country to go off a cliff? Expecting Jesus to arrive then to solve all of our problems?

If they win control of both House & Senate, they might get ALL of the blame.... So, if I were a Democrat (disclaimer: neither R or D), I would badly want to LOSE this puppy.

Have you thought that, maybe, they actually want to try to attempt to correct some of the royal screwups in fiscal and foreign policy that the Republicans have introduced? When a little boy starts a fire, you don't wait for the fire to get worse so that you can blame the boy; you put out the fire.

FRIFY,

I'd be just a tinge less enthused if I know that little boy's dad (who has an anger management problem) is going to come up and beat the shit out of me for "molesting" his son.

Have you thought that, maybe, they actually want to try to attempt to correct some of the royal screwups in fiscal and foreign policy that the Republicans have introduced?

Possibly, though to be fair to R's, most of the Dems are hardly blameless. How many Dems voted for Iraq? BK bill? Patriot Act? (hell, Adam Schiff (D) co-wrote the thing!) Opposed reasonable immigration control measures? Requested pork spending cuts? Didn't the speculator-friendly tax subsidies and of massive GSE expansion start under Clinton? (hint: the answer is "yes").

Oh, and on top of that, if the Dems get the brunt of the blame for the housing bubble implosion, they will be voted out during the next election and therefore powerless to "fix" anything.

GC,

Huh, since when was Bill Clinton accused of rape. Sexual harassment and indencent acts with a cigar was about the extent of his womanizing. And would you like to supply proof for what you're nudge nudge wink winking him for doing?

Any funny enough, the Clintons are still married and their daughter appears to be a very well adjusted young woman (and actually looking rather attractive now that her skin has cleared up). Meanwhile, how many GOP congress critters are on their third marriages? Dispite their profession of love for God and all that?

At least no prominent Democrat has been tied to going after underaged pages or giving WH press passes to manwhores...that's something in these dissolute times.

HARM,

The difference is that the Dems of the 1990s were trying new things - some of them didn't quite work out, but they were worth a shot. They lost power long before most of the hidden problems appeared and weren't in a position to fix the problems.

The GOP went in with impossible numbers and create enormous deficit spending under the guise of "responsible government" and somehow think things will turn out okay...?

The difference between Dems and GOP is like the difference between a normal person trying new things (and stumbling) and Casey Serin.

GC,

Yeah, an accuser so uncredible that it never left the GOP's lunatic fringe. Was not even touched by the Starr commission.

“main street media”
@Different Sean,
What do you call those again?

Huh?

oh, eggcorns -- The Eggcorn Database -- I think that one's in there...

Watching CNN looks like a good night for the Dems.

I hope the GOP completely implodes in 2007, and the Dems die a quiet death 2009-2015. This country needs more logically organized parties.

I think that one’s in there…

no, it's not -- this is our chance to make a meaningful contribution to lexicography... Drop in your Eggcorns

At the very least if Dems sweep the abuses on Wall Street will be scrutinized more carefully. The investor community especially big corporation fear regulatory measures. Alot of scandal broke out this year HP, Major backdating of options (many Tech), oil. Somebody needs to take a big push broom to the floor and clean up the dirt and dust. Nothing wrong with capitalism as long as the playing field is honest.

I tend to believe that housing will not be directly manipulated by the government. The bubble isn't uniform across the country, and it is very hard to re-balance housing supply and demand based on fiduciary policy.

Let's face it, we're overbuilt AND underwater. You can't incent the builders to burn down existing empty homes. Everyone with a pulse and a credit score higher than 2 already has a fancy IO loan, which means more interest rate cuts won't help. And you can't kill the bubble directly with government spending.

The only thing that will equalize the pressure is when stretched individuals start going bankrupt, and banks basically eat the bad loans. Eventually prices will come down (causing more bankruptcies in the process). Once prices are down enough, all the buyers who were waiting will then enter the market. Perhaps that will even stabilize the banks, because at that point the interest rates will probably be higher... although perhaps bank stocks themselves will take an extreme beating.

One might term that "justice". If you can't rely on banks to implement good capitalism, then survival of the fittest must have its day.

Anyway, new laws are forward-looking. You could argue that legislation could allow REITs more leeway to sue banks who sold them bad loans, but I don't think you can Constitutionally make that retroactive.

btw, the next town over has 0.59% of all homes in REO, which makes it the #1 foreclosure town in the nation. Rock on Greeley. Why there was a bubble in a place that stinks of cow s--t is beyond me (for those who don't know, Greeley is a stockyard and slaughterhouse capital of the U.S., and can be smelled 10 miles away on a windy day).

I'd love to see how their elections turn out. Although I believe Greeley is already mostly Democrat due to a blue-collar population.

Say bye bye to cap gain tax break. I see sell offs!

Oh, I get nervous when people agree with me. Actually, I wasn't advocating accelerating a pull-out in Iraq, CB. Colin Powell supported counter-insurgency tactics (probably sensible, given the conditions at the time), but the neocons were having none of it. Even today it makes better sense than our current 'conventional' warfare. We're still shooting at everything that moves over there.

As to prognostications for the coming two years, how about some inflation, some devaluation of the dollar, some increases in the short-term rate, some roll-backs in tax breaks, and residential real estate finds its own level?

Another one bites the dust

"Neocons are chickens."

Sir, I consider that a slur to chickenkind. I'm forced to challenge you to a pecking to death.

"REIC-based economy"

"overbuilt AND underwater"

Kind of says it all for me!

Oh btw "REIC" was one of the few terms Carol Lloyd (SF Gate) actually objected to on our blog! I found that a little weird. So..... as per her assesment all of this is just some huge and random coincidence?

She'll come around.

Allah,

The SDCIA post was hysterical! Thanks, needed a laugh.

"Some of the money was my own from a cash out re-fi"

Uh dude, that is not YOUR cash! It's the lenders and you "may" have to pay that back! Also notice just what an accomplice Home Depot became? No Payments-No Interest for 6 Months! For some flipper dude? Whoa! I understand some suburban couple charging $900 to build a deck but this is a serious extension of credit for people who's only means of repaying the loan is from the sale of the home?

REIC-based economy indeed!

I see senatorial hearing next year addressing lending practices and the causes of the RE debacle. Banks will blame the MB's who will then blame the realtwhores. But be assured everyone will be invited to the party.

Forsaken: Former IE girl here did arnold take it again? I'm hoping that area shakes out because I'd like to return. The IE market has insane prices even with all the Bubble news.

@allah,

It's interesting reading the responses to that FB flipper you linked to. There seems to be consensus among these "seasoned flippers" that the market is tanking (at least in SD), and that it's best to undercut now rather than chase the market down. Looks like at least some of the bulls are capitulating!

Looks like the Republicans will stay in power in all three branches.

I can't say I feel too bad about it. Now I want the Republicans to go and lie in and it, I want them to be forever tarred by their actions circa 2000 - 2006. I want future generations to associate the GOP the way people mentally associate with Fascism or Communism or the PRI.