patrick.net

Before the crash, we had a cousin here in Bay Area who was normally sweet and intellectual, then she became a Century 21 real estate agent. She got into an irrational argument with my husband about buying now ( this was right before the peak) or being priced out for all time. She even claimed we were harming our children's future. They didn't talk for awhile, which made me sad because I liked his cousin, and we used to go to the opera together. Years later, after the crash, she let her license go and started working for something called (I may be wrong about the exact name) the Housing Authority, which turned out to be slightly corrupt, but she joined up to help poor families own homes. She never apologized to my husband, never admitted the Patrick articles he sent her ALL ended up being true. Just years later she invited us to an art showing, and we said nothing about the argument again. She sold her home in Santa Clara last summer and moved out of the area. She spoke to us about real estate for the first time since leaving the fold during the sale of her home that had been in the family for two generations. She pointed out that Santa Clara had lost its charm. She pointed out the traffic along the Alameda, and the hooka lounge around the corner where a family owned cafe once was. She knew she was never going to be able to sell at these crazy inflated prices again, and got out of the Bay Area. She now lives in a lovely community with all the extra cash from our inflated market. She got out of the cult, and out of the Bay of Feudalism. I hope my cousin in Santa Clarita can at least shake the crazy cult like jargon of the real estate world, like my husband's cousin finally did.

hrhjuliet says

She knew she was never going to be able to sell at these crazy inflated prices again, and got out of the Bay Area.

Hmmm...with sales volume this low, how are Realtors making their living?

jojo says

Yes, the increased variability (volatility) of weather systems is a strong indication of Climate Change.

Who said it did increase?

jojo says

Straw Man says

jojo says

Yes, the increased [b]variability (volatility) of weather systems[/b] is a strong indication of Climate Change.

Who said it did increase?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

This is "weather"? Steady change in one direction is "volatility"? A-ok.

Even an earth with barely breathable atmosphere and a completely destroyed ecology would be far easier to live on than any other place in our solar system. Mankind would go underground and live in silos, mining the earth below for minerals and fuels to sustain life inside. Think bioDome underground.
We won't die out because of global warming, but it's VERY likely to cause a population crash. Those of you who believe Earth has too many people would approve, I guess.

corntrollio says

Also, local governments tend to snag massive fees, so even new housing is more expensive than it should be. I believe the estimate for one of the massive condo buildings in SF was $140K/unit. That's a hell of a lot of money.

This is correct. It calls “impact fee”. It is a single most important addition to local high cost of housing. Where this money goes is another question. Teachers salary schedule are unchanged from last 5-6 years.

Every time I think that housing can't get more expensive here in silicon valley, I turn out to be wrong. I bought a small house in Mountain View last summer, and similar houses, in worse shape, are going for ~15% more right now. A small 1000sqft 3/2 on a 6000 sq ft lot just sold for $1.2M in my neighborhood.

Inventory is low on the peninsula, almost non-existent if the school district is average or better. Open houses are flooded with interested buyers. The 3/2 I mentioned above was packed, and at one point, a tour bus showed up with a bunch of asian investors and a translator tour guide.

What is driving this? Is this all due to local wealth? The bus of investors would seem to imply that foreigners are buying here too. How much does loose Fed policy contribute in an area of such high demand and tight supply?

These kinds of prices require dual high income families to afford. Where do all the average income earners live? Is everyone commuting in from Gilroy and Tracy? It's hard to imagine how this could be sustained.

myob says

These kinds of prices require dual high income families to afford. Where do all the average income earners live?

1% of the population earn more than $400K and is loaded with cash.
$1.2M is like nothing to them.

That's not 300,000 people, that's 3,000,000 people.

If even 50% decide to live here, it can obviously be sustained.

If you're just an engineer or poor entrepreneur, you shouldn't even try to live here.

Go live in Tracy or Modesto.

Heraclitusstudent says

Go live in Tracy or Modesto.

I hear Ben Lomond is nice...

Bump. Down jojo, down. Sit. Good boy.

Lol@ "I posted more words than you and I said so" as an argument

REpro says

This is correct. It calls “impact fee”.

It's not just direct fees either, although those are more typical in San Francisco. The whole planning process here in the Bay Area tends to be very expensive overall and the cost per square foot for construction/addition is very high as a result. To some extent, the extremely high cost of construction sets a bit of a floor on housing prices, even though the technical value of a house is in the land.

REpro says

Where this money goes is another question.

In SF, a lot of it goes to the non-profit-industrial complex. Those guys are good at pulling in other people's money for misguided programs that don't achieve what they think they achieve.

myob says

These kinds of prices require dual high income families to afford. Where do all the average income earners live? Is everyone commuting in from Gilroy and Tracy? It's hard to imagine how this could be sustained

Came to the point that a lot of middle class earners are freak-out with situation and seriously considering moving to Oregon, Texas, Arizona, … kind similar action as in 2005-06. Bay area residents may face another household expense soon e.g. private schooling.

dodgerfanjohn says

Lol@ "I posted more words than you and I said so" as an argument

LOL @ "I can't think critically and therefore ignore data and analysis" as an argument.

Bigsby says

The obvious question being when.

This year or by 2019 by what I read in that article

indigenous says

Beaulieu also sees a 15 to 34 percent correction coming in the stock market.

He says he sees a downturn in 2019. I suspect that means the 30 percent stock market drop will be in 2018. So we are around 1870 for the S&P 500 with a market cap to GDP ratio of 116%. If it goes down about 20% to a ratio of 90%, then the market is back in the fairly valued region.

It was 150% back in December 1999.

adarmiento says

He says he sees a downturn in 2019. I suspect that means the 30 percent stock market drop will be in 2018. So we are around 1870 for the S&P 500 with a market cap to GDP ratio of 116%. If it goes down about 20% to a ratio of 90%, then the market is back in the fairly valued region.

It was 150% back in December 1999.

It is unclear whether he is talking about this year or 2019.

The main thing to know is that due to FED activity the stock market is overvalued willy nilly and there will be a large correction, so stock investment is skating away on the thin ice of a new day, to think otherwise is folly.

It's the gift that keeps on taking.

How is the earnings and revenue going to be impacted by the Federal Reserve decreasing its quantitative easing to zero ?

Look at how the sales or revenue for major bluechips like Walmart have steadily gone up since 2004.

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/financial-statements?symbol=wmt

corntrollio says

dodgerfanjohn says

Lol@ "I posted more words than you and I said so" as an argument

LOL @ "I can't think critically and therefore ignore data and analysis" as an argument.

Point me to the data and analysis in this thread.

adarmiento says

How is the earnings and revenue going to be impacted by the Federal Reserve decreasing its quantitative easing to zero ?

I think they were saying that the impact is going to come from the impact of O care.

That and the normal business cycle.

It will be/is incumbent on Yellin to keep QE going.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

The buyer establishes the home's value.
Screw the seller,appraisers, commissioned sales people & banks. They don't care about the buyer. 10% of asking price unless idiocy is in one's DNA then all they can do is overpay.

indigenous says

It will be/is incumbent on Yellin to keep QE going.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

I agree as the Affordable Care Act (aka: "Obamacare") is going to have a bigger price tag than what it was sold at back in 2009. That is because the original forecasts were based on no exemptions and delays (i.e., for public sector unions with Cadillac healthcare plans, etc.). It will be interesting to see who the Democrats will blame for the larger prices. Will they only focus on the insurance companies ?

Perhaps there will be a bailout of the insurance industry because of this ?

As far as QE #5 from the Janet Yellin, I think the Fed may stop no further than $30 billion per month of the Federal Reserve buying mortgage back securities and U.S. Treasury notes. I do not think QE will go down to $0 for another two years.

And as a result I suspect that the 10 year Treasury Note will not go above 3% for at least another 2 years.

A home's value is based on what a buyer is willing to spend to buy it, and what the seller will agree to sell it at. And I think there are forces at work which determine this equilibrium point.

They are several rules which create these forces. Such rules are price to income ratio, Principal/Interest/Taxes/Insurance as a percentage of median household income, as well as Patrick's rule below:

annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high
annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline
annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable

The bottom line is that Yellin has to keep the interest rate low in order to keep the debt service low.

A well known predictor of the economy is the interest rate on bonds in other words the higher the interest rates corporations have to pay the slower the economy.

Obama care is equal to higher interest rates. I assume this is what they are saying will influence the stock market.

"The 1980s Are Now Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back"

indigenous says

The bottom line is that Yellin has to keep the interest rate low in order to keep the debt service low.

A well known predictor of the economy is the interest rate on bonds in other words the higher the interest rates corporations have to pay the slower the economy.

I agree as long as the US Treasury 10 year note stays below 3% that the Federal governments interest payments will be less than 10% of the federal budget.

Also the lower rates means more earnings for the corporations since they pay less interest on their debt.

Lower rates force retirees to invest in stocks in order to avoid earning a paltry 1 to 2% on I series savings bonds and Certificate of Deposits (CDs).

Kerry voted "YES" on the resolution to authorize the war in Iraq, a war based upon trumped up charges.

zzyzzx says

Blurtman says

Has Russia killed 100,000 women and children in the invasion of Crimea? No.

They have killed way more in previous invasions.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes#Soviet_Union_perpetrated_crimes

Did Russia engage in the genocide of an indigenous people? We are talking about the current action in Ukraine, and the hypocrisy of a country that has committed war crimes quite recently.

"annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high
annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline
annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable"

It's a long winded way of saying buy in the Ghetto and not prime. Which is absolutely a mistake.

Based on that theory, someone like Patrick would buy in places like Vallejo 10-20 years ago and not buy in Menlo Park, which turned out to be a millior dollar mistake. If the rules doesn't work, it makes no sense to worship it.

corntrollio says

Read S-1s and other SEC filings and also read articles on this. You can see
how tightly concentrated share ownership is in a select few. The difference
between the shitty businesses that had IPOs in the 1999-2000 range is that the
businesses were shitty, had no revenue/profit, and the founders gave up a lot
more of their stock. Working for these shit businesses was way more risky than
working for, say, Facebook in 2010.

The companies that have been IPOing lately have had a more identifiable
revenue model, and the founders and key employees haven't had to give up nearly
as much stock.

More important is the companies that haven't been undergoing IPOs because
they sold privately. In those cases, the founders and key employees retain an
even bigger share of the pot and the VCs retain most of the remainder. Rank and
file get enough to get them not to leave their job, but it's not a whole lot
unless you were really early.

The stock compensation section of the 10-K under notes to consolidated financial statement details the options outstanding.

The biggest change in stock compensation over the decade is the popularity of RSU's, PSU's in lieu of options, especially if you are not the first several hundred seed employees. stock units guarantees a payday (if liquidity hurdle is cleared) albeit you lose the upside of sheer options where the price explodes and you hold say 30K options and benefit on the increment than say 10K units where you benefit from the entire price.

The thing is if you hit on the right company, at the right time, at the right executive level from someone I know. You didn't buy one house in Cupertino, you just bought four houses, one for each of his four kids, aged 10-18. Wealth drives future demands. People who made their wealth in the dotcom eras are the buyers the last 10 years in the valley. People who makes their wealth now, will drive demand for their next generation.

bgamall4 says

Blurtman says

Kerry voted "YES" on the resolution to authorize the war in Iraq, a war based upon trumped up charges.

And that knowing that WTC7 was demolished. It is on video where he admits to the demolition. So he knew the Zionist plot to make the US invade the Middle East on behalf of Israel and he still voted for war. What a conflicted piece of crap.

We even have the president of Israel visiting, he is still out here talking to politicians. Probably up to something as usual.

The Ukrainians should just sell Crimea to Russia, and use the money to pay off their debts and move some Ukrainians from all over Russia back to Ukraine while expelling some of the remaining Russians.

Last night on PBS, Henry Kissinger was interviewed by Charlie Rose. I'm not a big fan of Kissinger in general, but what he said about Ukraine made a lof of sense. There is no video available yet. Tere might be vdeo later.

Kissinger said Ukraine should be democratic and independent, that the 2014 revolution has NOT been democratic, that Ukraine should not be part of NATO, that Crimea should be autonomous (as it has been), and that the Russians should get an indefinite lease on their Navy base in Crimea.

He used the expression "the Finnish model", which means that Ukraine should emulate post-WW2 Finland, which oriented towards the west but adopted a non-confrontational non-NATO military stance toward Russia.

Except for the added insight and subtlety of using the Finnish model, these are exactly my thoughts on Ukraine.

Now we have both Henry Kissinger and Stephen Cohen being voices of reason. I hope Kerry and Obama are listening carefully.

This plot surely gets thicker and thicker every day. It sure is bad to be in a little country stuck in a tug of war between 2 super powers.

zzyzzx says

The Ukrainians should just sell Crimea to Russia, and use the money to pay off their debts and move some Ukrainians from all over Russia back to Ukraine while expelling some of the remaining Russians.

I think the price at this point is buy 0 and get 1 free.

dodgerfanjohn says

corntrollio says

dodgerfanjohn says

Lol@ "I posted more words than you and I said so" as an argument

LOL @ "I can't think critically and therefore ignore data and analysis" as an argument.

Point me to the data and analysis in this thread.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

This report from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences came out last week.

Here is the table of contents to whet your whistle:

Correction: Estoniation FM (Foreign Minister), not PM, made the statements.

Now, the fact that police and demonstrators were shot at with the same type ammunition proves exactly NOTHING. Do I really need to spell this out? There are many common types of ammunition, and no reason to believe that only certain groups of people have access to certain rifles and ammunition.

Type of ammunition neither supprts not detracts from any particular theory at this point.

New Renter says

Assuming by that time the prices of Chilean beach homes don't make a corner Manhattan apartment with a park view look cheap.

Fortunately that won't happen because of Pinochet's legacy, although a Monetarist at least they do not suffer from Keynesian propaganda