patrick.net

Nice to be able to agree wholeheartedly with you, tatapu70. In technology, innovation comes from people doing stuff that most customers could not fathom. Those who think that innovation comes from the marketing department are oh-so wrong. Sorry.

I partially agree with this. But innovation must have its roots in understanding the users' needs. Sales and marketing types working daily with users hear valuable feedback, providing ideas that an isolated programmer would not otherwise hear. There needs to be a balance between user feedback/requests and "big picture" development ideas that customers can't yet imagine.

Apple, possibly the most innovative company in US history, makes up things the customer has never thought of.

Their innovation is to create something we didn't realize we needed, till we saw it...

the most marketing research of an automobile ever was the Edsel. So much for letting the marketing department set your directions!

azrob00,

>>Apple, possibly the most innovative company in US history.

I was kinda' waiting for someone to bring up Apple.

You've gotta be kidding me. Apple does very little but package other people's ideas in shiny aluminum and sprinkle "cool" pixie-dust on top of it. I'm oversimplifying here, but that is the essence of apple. I'm not saying they build bad products, but I am saying that very little of it originates in-house.

Apple buys pretty much ALL the hardware that goes into their products from outside sources. The only notable exception is the CPU of some of the new devices, which was based on designs from an acquisition that they made (Palo Alto Semiconductor). All the rest is innovated, designed and manufactured by Qualcomm, Intel, Texas Instruments, Broadcom, Atheros, Marvell, TSMC, Micron Technology and scores of other and smaller semiconductor vendors. Apple is about putting the pieces together and writing the software.

Again, I'm not saying they do a bad job at it, but 90% of what they sell are other people's innovations, 9% is recycled software innovations and maybe 1% is true innovation from Apple itself.

Apples seems to have struck a good mix though. They aren't trying to re-invent the wheel, they're trying to improve and make things better. They don't need to add a lot to take something from useless, to incredible easy to use.

From what I've seen, products developed without outside input are a disaster. Customers need to be included. In fact, whenever someone has a startup idea now, I tell them to get it out the door and to the customer immediately, because they can easily waste years creating something no one wants. It's cool, but no one wants it. If you're not sure about this, think tech bubble of 2000. I knew far too many companies building crap that no one wanted.

justme says

>>Apple, possibly the most innovative company in US history.
I was kinda’ waiting for someone to bring up Apple.
You’ve gotta be kidding me. Apple does very little but package other people’s ideas in shiny aluminum and sprinkle “cool” pixie-dust on top of it. I’m oversimplifying here, but that is the essence of apple. I’m not saying they build bad products, but I am saying that very little of it originates in-house.

True but this is missing the point. There are no other consumer electronic concerns that approach Apple's ability to productize technology. Sony comes close but they are dysfunctional in the typical conservative, hierarchal Asian way.

Take Apple's LaserWriter. It followed HP's LaserJet (which used the same Canon printing element) to the market by about a year yet it totally killed HP's offering in capability and thereby totally changed the way we created printed material. Apple was able to look deeper into what the available technology was capable of solving and put together the complete package that blew away the existing state of the art. HP didn't have the strategic vision or the artistic desire to see beyond Courier-12 and the serial port connection, while Apple saw that with another year of R&D on some tough problems they could create an end-to-end solution that would replace Linotype output, or close to it.

Apple making both ends of the chain -- hardware and software -- was the magic pixie dust here. They didn't have to get on a plane to Redmond to get OS support, they were rolling their own.

Apple is about putting the pieces together and writing the software.

Indeed. Funny how nobody is able to do what they do, or do it so well. When I came back to the states in 2000 I picked up a $200 mp3 player (Nike PSA play) from Fry's. it could hold about 10 songs. It had a real sh---y management front-end for getting music onto the device, really sucked. Later on in 2001 Archos was making 6GB music players with a 2.5" hd. They were transportable bricks with a worse UX.

Apple got lucky when somebody came to them with the right embryonic tech and strategic vision to capitalize on the upcoming 1.8" HDs from Toshiba. Apple then also brought the best music guy in the mac ISV ecosphere on board to rewrite SoundJam (as iTunes) which came out in early 2001.

Again, Apple was a year late to the party, as Archos's Jukebox came out in late 2000. But the Archos offering was saddled by an immense form factor (wouldn't fit in a pocket), sickly-slow USB 1.0 file transfer, and a real suck UX on the device itself.

Apple's offering -- the 1G iPod -- was engineered to SOLVE the problem, and it did. 50 MB/s file transfer over firewire. The clickwheel to navigate the UX, itself a Mac-like arrangement and attention to detail, and a 10hr battery pack and engineering to buffer songs to make the battery last.

So yeah, just some parts and some software . . . that captured 90% of the truly PMP market that didn't really exist before Apple "invented" it.

Innovation is not invention -- innovation is productizing invention. There is a difference, and it's the box Apple occupies, nobody (except Sony and Microsoft) comes close, and apparently nobody is capable of coming close.

pkennedy says

From what I’ve seen, products developed without outside input are a disaster. Customers need to be included.

Apple's secret is that they are their primary customers. They're making the machines that THEY want to use. That was why the Apple II and Mac succeeded, and the Apple III and Lisa failed, and also why the company lost its way in the 90s. They stopped making the machines that were good enough for them, shipping crappy crap instead to target an unfilled market segment.

The PCjr should be a lesson to us all.

justme says

Apple buys pretty much ALL the hardware that goes into their products from outside sources. The only notable exception is the CPU of some of the new devices, which was based on designs from an acquisition that they made (Palo Alto Semiconductor). All the rest is innovated, designed and manufactured by Qualcomm, Intel, Texas Instruments, Broadcom, Atheros, Marvell, TSMC, Micron Technology and scores of other and smaller semiconductor vendors. Apple is about putting the pieces together and writing the software.
Again, I’m not saying they do a bad job at it, but 90% of what they sell are other people’s innovations, 9% is recycled software innovations and maybe 1% is true innovation from Apple itself.

Absolutaly correct. Add to that their services (Itunes) just like Youtube and others utilizes plenty of other vendeors servers and networking products. And many of these vendors are not located in Silicon Valley.

re: post topic, interview with Gerald Celente...

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/4/24_Gerald_Celente_files/Gerald%20Celente%204%3A24%3A2010.mp3

Today's featured property is a lovely 3 bedroom home at 2413 Hickory Dr, Concord, CA that rents for $1450 per month. It features a spacious back yard for gardening. The owners tax basis is $140k. How low can you go?

There seems to be a band of rental prices, and I think Patrick actually had a decent graph on it, where most rents fit between a certain level.

It really seems that most rents fit between about $1000 and $2500. It doesn't really matter how crappy your place is, it isn't going below $1000, thus if you can buy a crap shack, you're going to get $1000 for it. On the flip side, if you buy too high, you're not likely to see much above $2500 either.

I'm guessing that the upper limit is probably caused by LL's who buy crappy 4br units, then rent them for no more than $2500. When "your" unit is compared with the crappy other 4br, it has to come inline with their prices, even though it might be a lot nicer.

We are in the window of time where home prices have bottomed and will likely be close to flat for 2-3 years. This is because shadow inventory will temporarily offset the slowly improving demand. Official unemployment will likely decline from the recent peak of about 10% to around 7% by 2012. At that point, shadow inventory will have dissipated and the rising demand will start to push housing prices up.

Roberto,

Your strategy makes sense, and should be lower risk.

But better current income is usually accompanied by lower appreciation.
It is a trade-off. A question of risk-reward and timing preference.

Let's overlay the 30yr rate over that:

(vertical axis is flipped on the rate, +y = more accelerant)

good point! along with the first time buyer's credit, the FED bought 1.2 gazillion dollars of MBS to keep mortgage rates low. That is also ending, so we'll, lets see how housing fares without bribes... (except in California, California is completely unwilling to quit bribing home buyers, despite a HUGE budget deficit!)

The 30 year fix rate will probably rise slowly to about 6% by this time next year. That is still low by historical standards, and not an impediment to affordability. Affordability high very good in most of the country, and on average countywide. Unemployment and the fear of job loss, and potential further declines in housing prices are the biggest factors holding back demand. Shadow inventory will keep supply plentiful, preventing any big price increases. All of these issues will fade during the next two years.

Zephyr says

The 30 year fix rate will probably rise slowly to about 6% by this time next year. That is still low by historical standards, and not an impediment to affordability

I'm hesitant about tooting my own horn but as soon as I made that graph my mouth dropped at its explanatory and predictive power.

The correlation between the 2009 turn around and 5% rates is unmistakable. That's why we're "going up" right now. A 100bps raise in rates cuts buying power 20% across the board; the 2009 turnaround appears to be a rather wispy thing compared to the historical degree of stimulus being applied.

Now, if the PTB really wanted to save the housing market and what's left of the private economy they need to figure how to keep the price curve going up. We assume the 5%-6% zone is within the FOMCs power to hold, perhaps so, perhaps not.

To really save the housing market the PTB need to figure out how to get 2% loans to people, like Japan has been doing for the past 10+ years.

Many people are still leaving CA.

Only a few people are going to CA (I am one of them).

Prices are still way too high compared to both rents and median incomes. Without toxic mortgages, there is no way for average person to buy. Couple with increasing supply and decreasing demand... there is only one way for prices to go. I would not be moving to CA if I was not fairly confident in this.

Troy says

To really save the housing market the PTB need to figure out how to get 2% loans to people, like Japan has been doing for the past 10+ years.

I think the bigger problem is that people equate "saving the housing market" with "keeping the current price level." When gas is overpriced... why don't we save the gas market by keeping it overpriced?

Zephyr says

We are in the window of time where home prices have bottomed and will likely be close to flat for 2-3 years. This is because shadow inventory will temporarily offset the slowly improving demand. Official unemployment will likely decline from the recent peak of about 10% to around 7% by 2012. At that point, shadow inventory will have dissipated and the rising demand will start to push housing prices up.

You forgot the /sarcasm flag at the end of your post.

The111 says

Prices are still way too high compared to both rents and median incomes. Without toxic mortgages, there is no way for average person to buy. Couple with increasing supply and decreasing demand… there is only one way for prices to go. I would not be moving to CA if I was not fairly confident in this.

Not to worry, with high prices and higher compensation needs, you need not come here, our jobs will most likely come to you. Many other state governments are certianly courting employers here to set up shop in their states.

@Zephyr

One possible source of housing that I think has been missed is current owners who aren't willing to put their homes on the market while things are unknown. If you were thinking of selling in 2006, and didn't, then by 2012, you've essentially been waiting 6 years for the "right time". I don't have specifics, but I'm betting that the housing crash forced many sellers to avoid selling, giving more space for foreclosures. Foreclosures might be trickling onto the market now, but I'm betting they're also replacing some traditional home owners as well.

Those home owners are going to be just itching to trade up/down/relocate/etc by 2012. They could create a continuous glut of homes for another couple of years and/or slowly come onto the market now, forcing banks to pull a little inventory off the market to protect prices.

The flipside is that many of those people will be creating equity during this time as well. If they had planned to move after 8 years (buying in 1998), instead of leaving after 8, they're looking at 14 years, a decent chunk of the mortgage should be paid off by then.

It should also create extra money for the stock market, as they may not be able to trade up right now, thus the effects of siphoning off money to a larger mortgage won't be in play and those people could end up with much larger pots of money in the stock market.

I don't have any figures unfortunately for this, but based on the fact that every time I do a housing search it's 50% foreclosures, and the market isn't exactly crying about an astronomical number of houses on the market, meaning someone had to hold off putting their homes on the market to create a 50/50 divide.

California population data, to july 2009. Shows a pretty constant growth. There might be lots of "talk" of people leaving, but the numbers don't show it.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idim=state:06000&dl=en&hl=en&q=california+population+statistics

pkennedy says

California population data, to july 2009. Shows a pretty constant growth. There might be lots of “talk” of people leaving, but the numbers don’t show it.

Or do they, your numbers are showing the rise of "Rug Rats"
put into numbers of migration...
http://pewsocialtrends.org/maps/migration/

Troy,

It is the correlation with the financial crisis and the bottoming of the economy that is unmistakable.

The mortgage rates are important but they are trumped by fear (and greed). People don't care about interest rates when the prices are seen as declining and when they are worried about their income. Fear keeps most people from buying bargains during the market bottom. They also don't care about interest rates during bubbles when they expect prices to surge. Exuberance drives most people to want to buy during market bubble highs. For example, interest rates have been at very high levels and even rising during some previous boom/bubbles. And they have declined during some busts, as prices also declined.

Right now there are more houses than needed. So even with low interest rates, supply exceeds demand. But not by as much as it did a year ago. Recent months have brought a mitigation of this mismatch, so the prices have moved up a little from their depressed levels. And the government policies have also boosted that demand.

Even if mortgage rates rose to 6%, the average US family could still afford the average home today. In most places affordability is not an issue for buyers. They are worried about the risk in the current economy. They are scared by the high unemplyment.

Once unemployment declines people will become more confident. Only then will real demand pick up. Shadow supply will keep prices from moving much for a while, but slightly higher intrerest rates will not be an issue.

The population of California (like the entire US) is growing.

pkennedy,

People who have waited to sell are a major element of the shadow inventory.
However, it should be noted that nearly all of them will immediately buy or rent another house.
They have to live somewhere. So, they cause no real net shift in the supply vs demand balance.

The shadow supply that does push the balance are the empty foreclosures and the empty inventory of new homes.

@thomas.wong1986

Sounds good, population is increasing, we agree!

As Zephyr said, the US population is growing. California is growing right along with it. It has outpaced much of the US for a long time, even if it slows down, it's still growing.

@Zephyr

Ah good call. Makes sense. If they have acquired equity, it could be an additional shot to the housing economy for a short period at least.

pkennedy says

@thomas.wong1986
Sounds good, population is increasing, we agree!
As Zephyr said, the US population is growing. California is growing right along with it. It has outpaced much of the US for a long time, even if it slows down, it’s still growing.

I hardly think two people boinking last Saturday nite or a Suturday nite 10 years ago will have any impact on what your thinking of. Increase in population isnt going to drive housing, it will be jobs, jobs and more jobs.

People need housing. More people need more housing.

Thomas, It is the combination of population and jobs. Population increases the need for housing, and jobs increae the ability to pay for housing. These are fundamentals.

Overlay that with sentiment. Fear is holding the market back right now - just like overconfidence drove the silly bubble a few years ago.

You do know who Novellus is and how long they been in SV ? one by one jobs walking away....

ACCOUNTANT at NovellusLocation: Tualatin, Oregon (Portland, Oregon Area)

Type:Full-timeExperience:Mid-Senior levelFunctions:Accounting/Auditing Industries:Semiconductors Posted:April 28, 2010Employer Job ID:6715BRJob Description
Novellus Systems designs, builds, and services manufacturing equipment that is used in the production of semiconductor devices, or chips. We are the backbone of the tech revolution. As one of the top ten global semiconductor equipment companies in the world, our systems are essential to producing fast, complex, powerful, and cost-effective chips used in the latest cell phones, computers, MP3 players and HDTVs.

JOB TITLE: Senior Accountant - Corporate Accounting & Reporting

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY:

We are looking for a highly skilled and motivated senior accountant within our Corporate Accounting and Reporting Group based in Tualatin, Oregon

pkennedy says

People need housing. More people need more housing.

Brilliant!!!! who said engineers cant count!

I don't see "bottoms" I see graphs, and trends that are driven by the macro picture.

The upward glide on the left side of the curve was clearly aided by the increasing cheapness of the cost of money.

This gave the market upward momentum, which was continued by the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts & credits, and the rise of IO and suicide lending available to all takers, 2004-2007.

Casey Serin, the last Greater Fool was found in 2006 and his collection of suicide mortages finally blew him (and his lenders) up in 2007, heralding the top so clearly evident in that graph.

The inflation bugbear was taken off the table by 2008 as everything started collapsing upon itself. In early 2008 the PTB responded by raising the FHA limit to $729,750 (wow!), and printing $1.25T of money to reload the mortgage market 2009-earlier this year.

This and the 4 ~ 5% interest rates arrested the fall as the cost of money made purchasing the incoming distressed inventory a no-brainer for people with no brains and/or who wanted to roll the dice.

Yet the slope of the housing crash remained the same until second quarter 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

The $8000 tax credit became effective 2/09

The PTB threw what they had at the problem and managed to halt the spiral. This is normal. I'm no major EW proponent but it's clear that nothing moves down in straight line anyway, though housing is pretty sticky so that decline from 2006 to 2009 took me by surprise, I can tell you.

If the market follows the example of the 1990s, we go flatline from here while interest rates creep upward.

I was in Japan at the time but from the graphs

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MORTG/

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CASTHPI?rid=171

I see that rates really didn't "creep upward" in the 90s; there was loose policy coming out of the '91 recession, but the RE market was f---ed and didn't respond (since .mil jobs were leaving the state), and the RE market remained f---ed through 95 as monetary policy reversed as the overall economy got moving again, partially thanks to the rising trade and trade deficit in China coupled with the new efficiencies of big-box retailing.

California became happening as the dotcom bubble brought billions and billions of bucks into the state. LA was kinda behind the times until 2000 or so (condos were still cheap in Irvine when I was looking there in early 2000) but there was full employment in the valley in the late 90s, and apartments were getting real scarce in mid-2000 when I arrived in the south bay.

If there’s a bond crisis however, all bets are off and homes might be at 2006 levels in 5 years or less.

Either we live on different planets or we have a different understanding of how economics works and what state the world is in right now.

Lending is f---ed now. 2009 saw more money go out of mortgages than be put in by new borrowing. This is not just recessionary this is Depression economics.

If there's a "bond crisis" everything will be f---ed and we'll be lucky to retain our current semi-functioning constitutional gov't let alone be able to offer GSE funding of mortgages at anything under 10%.

You apparently don't understand how tapped out the middle class and below is right now, and how little power J6P has negotiating his wages from The Man.

You have this naive understanding of economic history, that the 70s wage-price spiral can repeat itself even though everything is different now.

Japan is the model, if not G.D. I.

This decade was *supposed* to be the decade we got our house in order in preparation for the Boomer retirement wave hitting in 2020. The leading contingent is turning 64 this year, and Peak Boomer production was 1955, aged 55 now. If you don't count the interest OASDI is "earning" on that filecabinet of unmarketable bonds it holds, the SSTF is now in actuarial deficit and will remain so for the remainder of our lives unless payroll taxes are raised again, and I fail to see how raising payroll taxes is good news for home prices.

Medicare is an unsolved $100T problem, we're spending a trillion (!) a year on military BS, we've got 99-week unemployment that people are still falling out of at the end.

But yeah, 2006 prices are possibly just around the corner because wage inflation is coming if the wheels fall off and the engine blows up.

Pull the other one.

The real estate market was in the doldrums in the early 1990s because of the excessive inventory of homes from the previous bubble. The Resolution Trust slowly released those properties into the market, mitigating the severity of the decline, but prolonging the agony.

Today we also have an excessive inventory of homes from the recent bubble. They are being steadily released into the market, keeping prices down. But the process will not take as long this time.

Japan is not the model. The problems of Japan are very different. They have no population growth, shifting to actual population decline. So housing is in a permanent oversupply. When supply exceeds demand, prices fall. Even with low interest rates.

We do have fiscal mess in our government finance. It is a rapidly growing problem now, and will develop into a real burden by the 2020s when the retirees are more numerous.

Along with boomer retirement will come a labor shortage, leading to real wage increases.
The bad news is that taxes will go up faster than real wages.

Zephyr,

Sorry, but I almost laughed out loud when I read your comment. Are you serious?

In California, unemployment is way up and is contuning to climb.

No job= no money + tighter lending standards = no buying houses.

There won't be a labor shortage.. Business will continue to do what they are doing now...hire cheap labor in other countries.

Housing market is going down and will go down for many years.

Sorry to bust your bubble. : - )

davidgrove says

Housing market is going down and will go down for many years.
Sorry to bust your bubble. : - )

Sorry to burst your bubble, but housing is NOT going down right now. In the future, who knows, but in the present it is going up.

David,

Don't worry, your comment does not worry me. Your feeling is understandable given current conditions, and popular sentiment. But that is temporary. Job markets and the economy are cyclical, and do change. We have had comparably high unemployment several times before in my lifetime. It swings back and forth between high and low unemplyment. And it will happen again. Demographic and macroeconomic analysis supports my view.

A common error that many people make is to think that market direction will not change. This is the mistake that bubble buyers made during the housing bubble. They thought prices would keep going up, or at least not decline. But it is a cycle that alternates between rising and falling.

Today, many people are making the same mistake that the bubble buyers made - only in reverse. They think the prices will keep going down or at least not rise. They are just as wrong as the bubble buyers were.