patrick.net

The only possible justification for higher mortgage vs. rent is appreciation extectations. A soft landing would kill just that expectation and should remove the ownership premium, making a soft landing itself impossible.

You will say that people are irrational. Very true. Watch out when they are fearful.

The article states correctly that renters as a group earn less than owners as a group.

Traditionally, this is because owners reside in SFHs that are not usually available for lease, renters live in cheaper multi-family units.

Nowadays, more condos are for sale and more investor-purchased SFHs are for lease, creating "grey areas" in which owners and renters co-exist "peacefully".

SFRenter,

Yeah buddy! You hit the nail on the head. It's like, Dude, where's my account? In fact never mind being able to identify the acct. they can't find the entire Inst. Svcs. Dept. I can't get too upset since I've been one of the guys hollering the loudest for the discounters to consolidate (be careful what you wish for). I'm not too concerned, in the end how can any marketplace that's operating on 1/2 the volume we had in the 90's continue to support that many players. They'll figure it out. Always do.

Peter P,

By professional do you mean you've never lost any money other than your own? Need a mentor?

By professional do you mean you’ve never lost any money other than your own?

I guess that is one way to look at it.

Need a mentor?

Always. :)

How fucking long can we beat a dead horse? Bay Area roads are not paved with gold bricks, the bay area does not have a disproportioned amount of daddy warbucks types. Yes, there are quite a few people here making bank, but I am sure there are quite a few people in Detroit making bank also. Furthermore, could the super-savvy-finacial geniuses explain how the Scrooge McDucks of the Bay Area justify a shitbox in E. San Hosebag being 750K? Oh I see, that's right, if you make 250k a year you WANT to live in E. San Hosebag.

Peter P - “rent for $1800 instead of buy for $500K” is your message and there is no problem with that.

You do not see a problem? That is a P/E of 23. In reality, many 600K condos are being rented for $1800, a P/E of nearly 28.

I did not understand most of your other points

What points? Reflexivity? Are you familar with George Soros or Karl Popper?

You do not see a problem? That is a P/E of 23. In reality, many 600K condos are being rented for $1800, a P/E of nearly 28.

Sorry, I might have misunderstood you. Do you see the high-ish P/E a problem or not? :)

About the Berstein work "Why You Can�t Afford a House in San Francisco"

I agree that most of this work is pretty sound. Even the methods aren't all that objectionable. This is a similar line of reasoning proposed by the Columbia/Wharton study we discussed yesterday.

My criticisms are:

1) As Peter P. pointed out, the rent-housing data is distorted through averaging. Rent-to-income ratios are strata, not any type of meaningful continuum. This would become more pronounced during periods of rapid RE asset inflation, as many higher income families opt to rent for fancial-prudence reasons. Aggregations average away very useful information.

2) This is a simple point: his own data proves that you were better off renting during the period of his study, and alternatively buying an S&P index. And not by a small measure; you were better by a very significant amount *not* buying RE.

He waves this away by saying we cannot expect equities to perform similarly in the future. I'd like to know how the hell he *knows* this. Here, all this time, I thought that such predictions required a crystal ball and a tarot deck.

***A simple rule of thumb: Economists who make specific predictions are actually fools in disguise. If he knows something like this about the S&P, then quit writing a friggin blog and go become the next Warren Buffet (or George Soros).

What sheeple are thinking and doing?

I talked to an engineer sheeple at an opening in Irvine, CA. He was buying a condo for his son. He said his father did this same wonderful transaction for him and he was doing it.

He waves this away by saying we cannot expect equities to perform similarly in the future. I’d like to know how the hell he *knows* this. Here, all this time, I thought that such predictions required a crystal ball and a tarot deck.

Let me guess... because stock market crashes, yet housing market *never* goes down because they are not making any more land. :)

If Patrick Kaliea’s 13 pillars have become the prevailing wisdom so be it.
Let’s do a rain dance for the fear you refer to - I am all for it.

We do not want the mass (sheeple) to agree with us.

Instead of rain dance, can we do sushi? :)

What I don’t get is why the working class “good ol boys in the middle of the country” like Bush, when those are the people that Bush does the most to disenfranchise?

I don't venture into politics here. But I understand the "why" of above. It's very apparent if you grew up in southwest rural Ohio like I did.

For the record, I vote neither (R) nor (D). (I even voted for the Natural Law party one year I was so disgusted.) The demorepublocrats can all burn, for all I care.

Peter P,

If there's a way to "botch" a trade I've done it. Entered Sell, when it should have been a Buy and vice versa, wrong CUSIP #'s, wrong account even! Stop Loss Order expired, it goes on and on. I've had people "back out" of trades and had to pay the difference myself. It's part of the biz and the only guys I know that never dropped the ball worked in admin. What particular facet of fin./tech did you want to focus on? Have you considered maybe the "Trust Dept." at one of the banks? Seems they are always looking for good people or is that just too regimented? A direction you'd prefer not take? They're always doing something different, what with all the Inst. Accts. Trusts and endowments. It's not like the "bond desk" where someone taps you on the shoulder and says it's O.K for you to go home now and all you know is bonds!

DinOR, thanks for the information. I am still looking into various fields of the industry. :)

BTW, what do you mean by "It’s not like the “bond desk” where someone taps you on the shoulder and says it’s O.K for you to go home now and all you know is bonds!"

Dear all,
People get very upset when i ask them about why real estate is stalling. In my work place i am the only renter and all others own a house, in fact some own 2-6 houses. But they dont want to see the writing on the wall.
Actually one should avoid discussing homeownership just like one avoids talking about politics at the workplace. People take this drama of housing bubble too seriously.

Any advice on other semi-liquid options for a BR like me who is just socking money away for a downpayment on a first home?

BR = Bitter Renter? :)

You can buy 13-week T-Bill. I think the yield is around 4.5% now. Some brokerages (like Fidelity) may let you participate in treasury auctions online free of charge.

Your bank may also offer a "risk-free" (no early withdrawal penalty) CD at around 3.5% to 4%.

World Savings has a 4.76 APY 8-month internet CD. Is that too long?

It is probably easier to do a CD though, unless you already have a brokerage account that is bond-friendly.

Wouldn’t you be better off with a money market fund? Vanguard’s are at 4.11% now. Or get a tax free one at 2.88% (depending on your tax situation).

MM funds may have significant MBS exposure though. I am not suggesting that this couble be problem.

Sure I sound like a bitter renter but all I’m hoping for is a small condo that I could reasonable afford.

When I was studying there (1995) some condos were significantly below 100K.

Is bank interest subjected to state tax? If it is so, then 4.75% is only less than 4.3% after state stax at the 9.3% bracket (not difficult in California).

In states with high state tax, isn't it better to buy treasury (as opposed to CD/MM)?

Davis_renter-
Have you thought of checking with payroll to see if they will automatically send part of your pay to a savings account (either with Fidelity or some other institution)? I'm not talking about a retirement account, for use pre-retirement. This would make it easier to build up the nest egg. Say about 10% of your gross? It works well for me. Out of sight, out of mind --well, not really, you still have to work on your asset allocation, but you only do that about once a year.
I'm not a finance person. I'm sure some smarty pants (said as an endearment) on this board could direct you with more sophistication than I.

Is there a sort of mental illness (in that people can’t recognize reality) that goes along with real estate transactions in California?

Well, back to the beginning question.
I was thinking about this the other day, as I spoke with family who were reminiscing on their good fortune in real estate. Their sense of satisfaction over the current situation is palpable, an impervious barrier to any word of caution by me. I don't think it's that they can't recognize reality, but their sense of reality is totally rooted in past, as familar and favorable gains in real estate. It's as if they've painted a rosy future for themselves using colors from the past. If you suggest a more complete "palette" of data, indicators, etc. that would totally ruin their pretty little picture. So, what you're saying is I'm only a multi-millionare on paper? I'm sure many of us speaking with family/friends on this subject have encountered this mental process.

I suspect speculative bubbles linger to the bitter end because people don't want to believe anything but the brightest of futures for their investments, truth be damned. It really is a remarkable person who will open their ears to bad news when the crowd around them is cheering the brilliance of their wise moves. Obvious human nature, isn't it?

So, what you’re saying is I’m only a multi-millionare on paper?

Unless you are physically holding a ton of gold. ;)

Otherwise, in God we trust.

Housing Bubble? What bubble??? Apparently, none of you has heard of this oh-so-wonderful realtors'(tm) magic. Works every time, bubble or not!

Here's how it works: as long as you price your house ending with "888", you'll be doing okay. You'll have 888 bids, and the winner will overbid your house by at least 888%.

Don't be too greedy though. Remember, you want three 8's, no more, and no less. I'm seeing a condo in Cupertino listed at $488,888. It's been listed for 88 days, still no sale. I guess it's because they're overdoing it.

Don’t be too greedy though. Remember, you want three 8’s, no more, and no less. I’m seeing a condo in Cupertino listed at $488,888. It’s been listed for 88 days, still no sale. I guess it’s because they’re overdoing it.

LOL :lol: 888

Perhaps I should offer 444,444, but hat would still be overpriced. What should I do?

Perhaps I should offer 444,444, but hat would still be overpriced. What should I do?

Oh no, you don't! There are people who'd rather buy at 666,666 than 444,444. My realtor(tm) told me so.

Is there a sort of mental illness (in that people can’t recognize reality) that goes along with real estate transactions in California?

Well, no. It's just that human beings are apparently having little brain orgasms when they are ignoring the facts.

Some people have all the fun. :-(

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm

The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.

The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen says.

New thread: Vallco, Condotino

Please continue to post in this thread as well.

The 1980s were the wildest ride for real estate of any time during the last 70 years.

After rising strongly in the late 1970s, nominal prices for homes largely held up with very little decline through the difficult period of the early 1980s, largely because the high inflation masked the real decline in housing values. During the late 1980s we had price increases that were greater than what we have seen this time, combined with banking fraud and bank failures even while prices climbed. Normally these problems manifest after the peak. However, in the 1980s the bubble was so severe that we had the Savings and Loan Crisis which started about four years before the real estate market peaked. We had many savings banks already going insolvent at least three years before the real estate market peaked. The market was so bad in the 1980s that the Federal S&L Insurance Corp. bailed out so many S&Ls that it was also declared insolvent – TWO YEARS BEFORE the real estate market peaked. And the bubble marched on.

The prolonged decline of the 1990s was the inevitable result of that historic excess.

HITMAN said:

Please, please stop arguing that b/c Japan real estate fell, so should US real estate. If you have ever lived in a different country/big city, you will know that US coastal cities are still MUCH MUCH cheaper than other larger international cities.

. :!: :!: :!: ATTENTION: STRAW MAN ALERT! :!: :!: :!:

It has just come to my attention that certain bulli$h posters are making exaggerated claims, drawing false conclusions from them, and then attributing these fabrications to Bubble-theory supporters.

Do not be fooled by such transparently dishonest ploys. Instead, always carefully inspect such arguments for the official Bubble Posseâ„¢ logo. That's how you can always distinguish a fake Bubble argument from the genuine article.

I NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BLOGGING...

Please, please stop arguing that b/c Japan real estate fell, so should US real estate. If you have ever lived in a different country/big city, you will know that US coastal cities are still MUCH MUCH cheaper than other larger international cities.

Ummm, data please...

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit (data service of the Economist magazine), San Francisco ranks 38th in USD terms, internationally, and is within 40% of the cost of #1 Tokyo and #2 Osaka. #3 is London, #4 is Moscow. Moscow!, how can that be you ask...

These figures are distorted by exchange rates. The PPP adjusted list shows San Francisco at #8, with Moscow falling off the list (of 50) entirely.

Sorry HITMAN, you MISSMAN again. C'mon man, you're a b-school grad (I think), log onto your alumni library and pull the data.

By the way, they used the "Burger Index" for PPP, so spare arguments that "you can't measure PPP against non-convertible currencies".

Please, please stop arguing that b/c Japan real estate fell, so should US real estate. If you have ever lived in a different country/big city, you will know that US coastal cities are still MUCH MUCH cheaper than other larger international cities.

I went to Osaka/Kyoto recently. 1000sf+ condos can be had for less than 500K USD.

Tokyo can be compared to Manhattan. San Francisco is a rather small city (size, population, economy) in comparison.

Hitman-Thanks for the info on the Tokyo run-up, but I would dispute that all major foreign cities are more expensive than here.

Hitman's statement was categorically false. No reason to discuss it further. Reference EIU data. In 2004, SF was only 40% off of Tokyo in USD terms. Since the USD weakened in that period, you have to measure the purchase-power adjusted (called PPP), which puts SF at #8 globally.

I just got back from living in Paris and the apartments there seemed like a bargain in comparable neighborhoods and the construction there was much nicer.

Very true. They do not have stucco-on-cardboard shitboxes. :)

It’s a fucking joke! Thieves roam the streets at night. And I predict it will get worse.

Downtown SJ is bad enough at night. The east part is a no-go-zone for me.