patrick.net

Why blame sellers ? We live in a capitalist economy. Seller has every right to ask as much as he or she wants. Sellers were never the problem.

The buyers are the ONLY ones to blame for this madness. They were the ones trying to outbid each other and pay OVER what the seller was asking. It was their money. They were primarily responsible for it.

Why blame anyone? It just happens. We are here to predict the future. Let somebody else assign blame and we will just sit and be entertained.

Why blame anyone? It just happens.

Bubbles come and go throughout history, this is true. However, rarely has a Central bank and so-called "regulators" ever had such a free hand in creating one and helping it to grow beyond all reason.

Whatever happened to so-called "fiscal responsibility", i.e., taking away the punchbowl when the party gets out of control?

FRIFY,

I hope you are right. I subscribe to Barrons, and in their economic round table, there was at least one analyst who said, BB is true to his words. He claimed to have met BB recently and according to him, BB will just act according to the data. I desperately want to believe, but the previous maestro has put enough distrust in me about the Fed.

I am not sure if the liquidity will solve the problem. I have read enough arguments about Paul Volker doing the exact opposite, and choosing to not avoid the recession and rather break the inflation. That according to the arguments, was better for the economy in the long term.

I find those arguments more logical. Hence my dislike for The Fulcrum Of The Modern Economic Paradigm - the one and only Sir Alan Greenspan.

To BA Or Not To BA:

This "mess" is an economic situation. As such, it's a description of a particular system state that requires certain actions on the part of buyers and lenders to occur. Unless we are making judgments about the moral responsibilities of all parties to the state of the economy, the only people to blame are the buyers who get shafted. The ones who get out with a profit can be counted "lucky", or a similarly appropriate adjective.

If we are making such judgments, then we have to reserve a Special Place for those who know their actions are harmful, then another ring for those who got played. I think the FBs mostly fit in the second category, and the lenders, etc. in the first.

However, rarely has a Central bank and so-called “regulators” ever had such a free hand in creating one and helping it to grow beyond all reason.

Central bank defends the interest of banks. Regulators are reactive, not proactive. This is just the nature of things.

My friend, we will be vindicated. ;)

requiem,

I disagree. I know many buyers simply believed what they were told. I am not a legal expert, and I am not sure if we can prove the lenders/agents cartel did anything that is akin to breaking the law in our current legal system. If they indeed acted in such a manner, yes, let's blame them and punish them.

But the lenders would not have been able to do so, if buyers of MBS did their due diligence. The bond investors may loose, but they were investing for profit and cannot blame anyone but themselves. All the parties involved, are looking to maximize their profits. Again, they have to do that in the framework established by the generally accepted business practices and such blah blah, and I don't know if they did or not. Maybe Fannie Mae should be blamed for not disclosing enough. I really do not know.

But naivety or stupidity on buyer's part is not an acceptable excuse to me. Their stupidity caused me pain. I have no sympathy for them. I am not going to do something, I am not even wishing any bad things. But if bad things happen to the FBs, I won't shed a tear.

that’s fine if trash talking their squandered wealth makes you feel better, just don’t fool yourself that they’re not sitting pretty.

Let me paraphrase, fuck the bay area, fuck the pompous fucks that live there, and fuck it's overpriced everything. Sitting pretty? Oh really. I just love this site, because you can spew shit all fucking day long and feel good about it.

Ok BA fucks repeat after me.

I pledge my alligance to the Bay Area,
And the BMW for which it stands,
All fucking yuppies united,
All others excluded,
Indivisible with blowfuckingfish sushi for all.

Go out of the Bay Area for a while and then go back to the fucking ant heap. I can think of nothing more vile to me than that entire fucking area. Oh, wait, yes I can, the people who live there.

Aww who the fuck I am fooling,

I would give my left testicle to be one of the lucky few that get to live and work in the bay area, get a 150 dollar haircut at Genoviews on University Ave, wear a pair of stupid looked rectangular euro-fag glasses, have the ulitmate trendy accessory on my arm: the asian girlfriend, whirl around in my imported convertible, I don't care what kind as long as its german and expensive, go out to overpriced C+ grade sushi at blowfuckingfish because I don't know the difference plus I look good talking excessively loud into my Motorola phazor 300, I got the super trendy black one, oh so hot.

Damn!

I bought my black "phazor" almost two years ago, and now everyone has one. I'd switch to another if it didn't fit so well in my tailored Hugo Boss jeans. Why oh why did they have to start selling them here in the States?

Ah well, time to get a new paint job on the convertible, it's collected some scratches.

I've been outside the Bay Area, and while there's some nice country out there, I'd need a private jet to fly back to civilization at regular intervals. Being out in the middle of the Arizona desert is pretty when it snows, but good luck finding sushi.

C+ grade sushi at blowfuckingfish

Did you mean Caa? I may give it a single B, which is still below investment grade.

wow, this is the fastest growing thread in history - is it a public holiday there?

Randy H Says:
Just for clarity, the flippers, specuvestors and FBs I talked to in my own small, rural midwestern sampling (sadly many were old friends and a few relatives) were entirely LOCALS.

on the topic, to what extent do you think the 'RE investment gurus' are to blame for the specuvestor frenzy, as per the kind of thing at:
http://www.johntreed.com/Reedgururating.html

these guys hold rolling national road shows charging anything from $5K to $15K a course per person -- they go everywhere, because they can always find suckers everywhere willing to stump up that sort of money to learn how to get rich quick. apart from low interest rates and flexible credit, why else would 40% of new loans be for investment? (for as long as it lasts before the crash)

btw, the market seems to be slowing here, and it has done for at least a year now -- properties have dropped in price and stay on the market longer as investors find rents can't cover the mortgage debt (or new owner-occupiers are under water), which in turns deters new investors -- the big question is still about a soft landing vs a 'plateau going to new highs in X years' (realtor's dream) vs a crash. We've obviously done this to death in the past, which is a mild criticism i have of patrick.net -- there's not a lot of structure to the site, so instead of coming up with some fixed conclusions, we just keep repeating the same stuff over and over again in slightly different ways in new threads -- not something cogent and succinct you can take to your local MP for consideration or use as a lobby...

one scenario: with 40% of new mortgages being for investment, if there is no crash or fire sale but a stabilisation of prices and rents, then we've just created a new society of landlords and tenants at about 50:50 ratio -- almost a dual class society, or a new 'wealth apartheid'. and the thing that did it was millions of individual decisions in 'the market' based purely on unenlightened self interest. more people than ever before will still be renting into old age, with no equity, and with major implications for pensions, social security, etc. the govt isn't even tracking this phenomenon at present. so then what happens?

marinite (our friend from across the bridge at http://marinrealestatebubble.blogspot.com/ ) wrote:

> So you patrick.netters were hoping for a ~45% cut in
> RE prices within a short span of time (a year?)? When
> in the history of RE has that ever happened? Past
> history suggests more like a 6 year span.

In most of Los Angeles most prices dropped ~45% in about 36 months from mid 1990 to mid 1993.

As I posted before watching homes in S. Cal drop in by TENS of thousands per year did not make people happy, but bit did not make people run for the doors like they will when homes in the Bay Area start dropping over a HUNDRED thousand per year.

Most of the single family homes around me in Presidio Heights have gone up in value by $200 to $500K PER YEAR over the past 8 years. There are going to be a lot of long time owners that decide to take the profit and retire as soon as values start going town.

town should be down

To BA or not to BA said:

"This whole mess is purely due to buyers. Our lives have been forever affected in an adverse way by these people who are willing to pay anything for anything. No mercy on them."

In response to my post defending realtors and naming sellers, regualtors and bankers as the turds in the system.

The post was kind of sarcastic. Actually, I agree with you, ultimate responsibility rests with the buyers, their minions and posses. However, I'm just getting tired of picking on realtors, they're not much worse sleazeballs then any other sales profession, and really, they are just doing what they can in a market that has been feeding them nicely.

Just thought I'd stir the pot, why not?

Different Sean Says:

> wow, this is the fastest growing thread in history
> is it a public holiday there?

Threads on BLOGs and e-mail lists usually grow slowly on holidays since most Americans BLOG and e-mail when they are at work getting paid by someone else. I can not figure how all the studies that come out keep showing American productivity increasing since it seems like the people working for me spend hours every day on My Space, BLOGing, Shopping and using Webmail to keep in touch with friends…

the economy is doing fine today.

Huh? Wow, seems someone put cool aid in the water supply.

Note: Don't drink the cool aid.

Which part of the economy is doing fine today? Housing and construction?

I just ran a ZipRealty query on Santa Clara county - reduced listings. It showed me only(!) 200 out of 300 listings. This of course does not count the relistings. So approx 10% (some of which relistings, just a guess) of Santa Clara county homes need to reduce their prices. Granted, some reductions are paltry, most from intially atrocious prices and so on.

But nice trend, don't you agree ?

As can be expected bulk of these are in Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose. The fringe areas are going to be in deep trouble. I could also spot "highly motivated sellers" phrase used in some. Many of the Gilroy/Morgan Hill homes are very new, 2-3 years old.

I am now completely confused. Where is the slow, very slow, very very slow downtrend ? Where is the stickiness ? Don't give me Cupertino/Palo Alto like crap answers. Not even the bearest of bear expected those to go down first.

Am I the only one sensing the implosion ?

OK, I will go back to the thread topic.

If California is exporting the bubble, then it will crash faster. It's not just the ARMs that are the wild card. Many Californians bought second homes in other out of state places (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City) - often using their HELOC. Many BA folks bought in Merced, Brentwood, Sacramento.

That it self makes BA less immune than other cycles. I don't know if any one has a handle on the magnitude of this. But let's not rule out the cascading effect.

Cascade !

FWIW the median income in DC is $90,300

all taxpayers' dollars, given as a 'gift', as per baudrillard. jack abramoff & co. would have raised the average... not to mention the lockheed martin revolving door appointments, etc.

Am I the only one sensing the implosion?

I am seeing it in slow motion. My requirements are more specific (view, vintage, amenities), so "my" inventory is not exploding yet, but it is steadily growing.

That DC median income statistic sounds mighty high. Much, much too high. Does anyone have a cite for it?

Go out of the Bay Area for a while and then go back to the fucking ant heap. I can think of nothing more vile to me than that entire fucking area. Oh, wait, yes I can, the people who live there.

Uh...LOL. Yeah, people here need to get out and see the world doesn't spin around the exis of entitlement.

Joe Schmoe Says:
That DC median income statistic sounds mighty high. Much, much too high. Does anyone have a cite for it?

they all sound high. more troll BS, probably. unless you take an exclusive suburb, or the salaries of congressmen and advisers and lobbyists drag the median up... it doesn't say anything about distribution of salaries either, it's only an averaging measure... however, with labourers only getting $10 an hour, walmart employees on $6.25 an hour, etc, it's suspicious. google will probably tell you. avg salry in the US is supposed to be $30 000 something dollars...

Do 401(k)s invest in the sharemarket in the states?

AMERICANS do not go in for envy. The gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country, but most people are unconcerned. Whereas Europeans fret about the way the economic pie is divided, Americans want to join the rich, not soak them. Eight out of ten, more than anywhere else, believe that though you may start poor, if you work hard, you can make pots of money. It is a central part of the American Dream.

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7055911

I thought it was funny a previous poster claimed 'in Europe everyone is pushing to the front and devil take the hindmost' etc, when that is precisely the american way, and has been for a long time, and european social democratic states tend to try to equalise things more, reduce poverty, provide more public goods and welfare, etc.

What made you change your mind finally? I raised the reasons why such a crash wasn’t in the cards many times over the last year and a half, but I couldn’t convince you. What made you realize that the crash indeed wasn’t going to happen?

I do not know exactly. But I am not afraid to adjust my positions.

I think fringe areas will fall hard, as price decompression works itself though the process. That said, even in good areas, SFHs may still see a 10%-15% nominal correction.

On the other hand, rent appears to be on the rise. This will help correcting the price/rent imbalance.

It is not too difficult to own. After the corrections, many condos/townhouses will be more affordable. One should not be obsessed with the ownership of an SFH with a big lot anyway.

I see the housing situation as just one aspect of the bipolarization of asset ownership in the US.

I do not think so. It is rather easy to relocate nowadays. One can always move slightly further (or across state lines) to get the "right" kind of housing.

The bipolarization of wealth is a natural process and the middle class is an unnatural occurence. I am not surprised that it is under pressure. However, I am not too worried about the middle class. So long as there is a will to climb upward, the middle class will persist. However, if the middle class does nothing to improve itself, it will fade away.

You were right that innovation is the key.

How much does the average BAer (or the posters on this blog) spend on eating out?

Our food budget is classified information.

Does it make sense to completely stop eating out, taking vacations etc. in order to save for housing?

Ask yourself what makes you happier.

The gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country, but most people are unconcerned.

The gap is not that big. Many public bathrooms in "upscale" places are not even attended. If the gap is big, one would expect such finer details.

The gap between super rich and rich is quite big though. Look at all those Gulfstreams and Learjets.

The gap is not that big.

well, how big is 'that big' when it's numerically the greatest in the world? wage multiples in the hundreds when in europe it may only be 10 or so? how big do you want it to be?

Many public bathrooms in “upscale” places are not even attended. If the gap is big, one would expect such finer details.

these days, they save money on wages by NOT hiring such people. more money to the bottom line that way. contributes to private affluence and public squalor...

there's no attendants in any bathroom in oz that i've encountered. people would find that a bit creepy...

heh, never mind that pollies and lobbyists are each filching hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in wages from the public, that there are rich and super-rich classes milking the rest of society like crazy (what would happen if that money was redistributed back down?), extravagant multi-billion defence contracts going to cronies where that sort of level of investment in military capability really isn't necessary, that 'get rich quick or die trying -- and devil take the hindmost' is the new national motto and ethos and conspicuous consumption rules, there's now a new index of social inequality known as the Toilet Attendant Index, which is superior to the normal numerical methods of assessing the distribution of earnings. It has some cross-cultural weaknesses tho, that's it's only major limitation...

these days, they save money on wages by NOT hiring such people. more money to the bottom line that way. contributes to private affluence and public squalor…

But if they are cheap enough, they can add enough value to justified. The point is that lower-level workers are actually quite expensive here. Another measure: percentage of private vehicles that are chauffeur-driven.

DS, I know what you are talking about. However, the more worrisome trend is that the middle-class is completely hypnotized by consumption. If it can pull itself together, it would still be a powerful force.

The Bay Area has the rest of the country beat. I’ll be sad if I have to leave.

Nothing personal, I just am a bit sick of the gold paved bay area. There are parts that are nice, LaMorinda for one, but come fucking on, San Jose, Milpitas, fuck the entire south bay can really just go fuck itself. There is just so much fucking bullshit about that area, everyone according to many on this site make 3-4X the median income, and for what I see when there the only thing on most BA residents mind is how to push you out of the way so they can get their $19/lb cheese that much quicker.

Again, glad you like it, you can have it. Kids in the BA are you high?

However, the more worrisome trend is that the middle-class is completely hypnotized by consumption. If it can pull itself together, it would still be a powerful force.

the middle class unfortunately is fatalistic and individualistic, and somewhat brainwashed. the flight of manufacturing has started to hollow out the middle class, also, as many middle middle positions have disappeared, both in middle management and in unionised skilled trades. these days, they are even less of what marx would call 'a class (acting) for itself', rather than a class of itself...

just kidding about the Toilet Attendant Index, altho coupled with the Chauffeur Index, you mighr really be on to something...

while I think of it, does anyone have an online subscription to The Economist? There's another series of articles on housing affordability from 2003 that I'd like to access that requires a subscription.

anyone? anyone? randy? anyone?

Looking on craigslist today, I have seen a Mercedes and a trip to Vegas offered to potential buyers.

GREAT OPPURTUNITY [sic] TO OWN HOME WITH NO MONEY DOWN AND NO CLOSING COST PLUS A FREE WEEKEND GETAWAY.

I love the way realtors like to frequently misspell words just to keep people like me on their toes, trying to catch my eye with their deliberate mistakes. It's not as though they're only half-educated or anything. Couldn't get a crappy job in the public service because of your spelling? Become a realtor instead...

burbed Says:

> Millionaires galore in Bay Area

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/WEALTH.TMP

> In the Bay Area, nearly 111,600 out of 2.5 million
> households had a net worth of at least $1 million
> or more in 2005, excluding the value of their homes

It looks like they excluded the value of homes AND any investment real estate since the owners of almost every piece of commercial property in the Bay Area are millionaires (not like that is a big deal any more)...

buffpilot,

Couldn't speak directly to the "military issue" but I thought that I'd heard that most states got quite tired of that and forced the DOD to have folks pay their taxes based on their "home of record" meaning where they originally enlisted. In the late 70's/early 80's many guys were claiming Nevada as it was a short hop to set up a P.O box.

FormerAptBroker Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 5:41 am

It looks like they excluded the value of homes AND any investment real estate since the owners of almost every piece of commercial property in the Bay Area are millionaires (not like that is a big deal any more)…

The problem with the "how many millionaires" question is one of determining accurate net worth. I don't care how many assets one has. Trump has billions in assets. I care about their balance sheet.

It is not possible to get public data about individual or private company net worth because their debt is not openly scrutinizable. Therefore, all data like this relies on self-reporting and statistical guesses based upon verifiable data, which itself is often only available in aggregate.

Frify,
I just wanted to step in and say something that I don't think most people from California or NY know or realize. You mentioned that you've worked on both coasts and " visited" the rest of the country. If by visiting, you mean vacationed or drove through another state that isn't on one of the coasts, then you really haven't experienced enough of the country to make an educated assumption about non-coastal states.
The reason I say this is that roughly 90% of the folks I run into who swear that mana from the heavens oozes out of the ground in the BA are more than likely people who have no experience with most of the country, and instead have hop-scotched from one end of the country to another.

NYC and SF do not represent most of the country. NYC is cold, busy, big, and very liberal. SF is Warm, Busy, smaller, and very liberal. Both are filled with people that would rather spend Saturday night watching an experimental movie about nudists or drinking vodka at the all-nite yuppy club.
I always ask these flyover people if they've ever lived in places like Montgomery Alabama, New Orleans, Dallas, Boise, Denver, Scottsadale, or anywhere other than NYC or SF,LA, etc etc. The answer's usually: " Well, I've visited some of those places." That doesn't count.

I grew up in the middle of the country. I've lived on both coasts. The diffrences are indeed physical, but the reason people move to be in an "ideal" area is to be with people they think are going to be like themselves. It isn't neccesarily the place. It's the people that make it nice.

Where I came from was perhaps not as physically dramatic as the BA, even though we did have the Smokey Mountains in our back yard, but the people were in my opinion more beautiful than the people here in SF. My neighbors never-ever say hello to me here. Back home, the neighbors knew when you were heading off to vacation and would feed your cats and set your alarm on the way out. This was normal.
I would never have known this had I simply skipped over the country from one end to another. So as far as your statement about BA having everywhere else beat, perhaps you should just mention that in your mind, it is the best place for you that you have lived in, which sounds like very few.