patrick.net

Peter P.,

Back to macroeconomics:

You don't suppose the Swiss invading Lichtenstein had anything to do with markets jitters, do you?

(That was very, very funny. Maybe we need to go take care of Switzerland for those Lichtenstinians?)

Usually at the better schools standardized tests are just a weed out, not a final discriminator for acceptance. The schools that summarily dismiss people for merely having above average scores are probably not schools you'd want to attend anyway. They tend to be big employee factories, not the types of schools that produce lots of Nobel winners.

"Under her breath, the newly minted Washington real estate agent sarcastically mutters a mantra.

"It's real easy. Just show a few houses. Six percent. It's real easy. Just show a few houses. Six percent." She's midway through her third or fourth repetition of the chant when the door to the four-bedroom, two-bathroom house finally opens. Butler, an agent in Re/Max's Rockville office, and her client, Eulalia Baptista, had arrived with high hopes..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701472.html

You don’t suppose the Swiss invading Lichtenstein had anything to do with markets jitters, do you?

Huh?

Usually at the better schools standardized tests are just a weed out, not a final discriminator for acceptance.

I doubt even good engineering schools look at GRE verbal scores too much.

http://www.slate.com/id/2160973/

"Echoes from 2000 can also be heard in the continual false calls of a market bottom. The Web site Minyanville has documented the repeated bottom-calling attempts by National Association of Realtors economist David Lereah. Lereah believed the housing market had stabilized in March 2006 and again in April, June, October, and November."

Huh 2.0?

Yes. Let's double the comment count. The goal will be 5200!

CB, it may also be fate.

My wife got rejected by UC Davis although she was accepted by UCLA. She appealed and got into Davis.

I did not get into UCB, which I would have gone to if I were admitted.

Events lead to events. Obviously, things played out according to fate.

CB,

If you spend every waking moment of your life practicing for the tests, taking practice tests, and looking at any you got wrong you too will ace the tests.

When I was interviewing kids for my college I had several kids who had taken the SATs perhaps 10 times or so. They had started with good scores, but them just kept taking them and taking them until they either figured out the tests or lucked out and cracked the 1500 barrier (or whatever it is now, it is different than when I was in school).

newsfreak,

I forgot about mental health support! My kids would drive me nuts if we were stuck somewhere with nothing to do. I'll throw a pack in the back of the car, so if we ever have to go someplace during an emergency I can't forget them.

There is a lunar eclipse tomorrow night.

lunar eclipse = Sun opposition Moon + Moon occultation, right?

GC,

I found it more disturbing. What a waste of time and money. I always asked the kids how many times they took the tests, I figured I'd find out if I really wanted to and that most kids wouldn't lie knowing that. Half took them once or twice and the rest more.

Dating myself, when I was in school you took them once, unless you were sick or really tanked them. I didn't know people who took them repeatedly.

"Poker, they can learn how to lose money."

Or they could buy SF real estate right now and learn the same lesson.

As a reminder for those of you keeping track at home, the SF Bay Area S&P Case-Shiller Home Index peaked at 218.37 in May, 2006 and has continued declining in subsequent months. It currently stands at 212.13 (Dec. 2006). The SF Index is composed of SF, Marin, San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. While I consider this index to be the gold standard, it does, like all other metrics, have its limitations. New homes are not considered (until it is sold by the first homeowner) and it does not take into account home improvements. A seven year downward/sideways slide similar to the last bubble would put us into 2013 to reach parity with the current peak (in nominal terms). This is hard to fathom (as I'm sure it was from 1990-97). SF proper may hold up better than, say, Antioch. Not advice to rent, buy, sell or flip real estate.

Years ago, we took the SATs twice at most, and 1200 was considered good.

That was before score/grade inflation.

newsfreak,

True, but until very recently my kids may have been able to 'buy' a house here for pennies down. And with the lending standards the way they were, being seven probably wouldn't be an issue.

newsfreak,

I too am anti-Hillary. I think she'd morph into whatever it takes to get elected. She seems to be some sort of a pro-choice war hawk to me.

I rather have Gore, even though I do not believe in the Global Warming hoax.

When I look for interns, I pay little attention to their GPA’s. All I care about is whether the person has raw smarts, genuine interest in the subject area and trustworthiness. In reverse order of importance.

I rely mostly on intuition.

My passenger might not be, because I saw some blood on his forehead, and, hear this, he didn’t get 800 on the Analysticals.

You stole his karma! :)

Not karmic advice

newsfreak Says:

> Years ago, we took the SATs twice at most, and 1200

Then Peter P Says:

> That was before score/grade inflation.

Thirty years ago a 3.5 GPA and 1200 SAT would get you in to Cal or Stanford...

Have you ever been in an actual jungle?

Well, Adrian Monk says that it is a jungle out there. So SF is a jungle, I guess. :)

The sad reality is that the character flaws that make them a loser under normal circumstances will still apply in case anarchy actually breaks loose.

I think the "sad" reality is that in any society most people will have to be losers.

I always enjoyed what were called 'objective' tests. They were generally better-written than course-related exams and were often interesting in and of themselves. I suspect liking them skewed scoring to the positive side.

I wish I could believe oceanic acidification and the current thaws in permafrost were temporary oddities, Peter. MSM have delivered their usual buffet of distortions on the subject. It's just not that hard to look up MIT Technology Review - is there a CalTech equivalent? - and get a look at the research absent most of the sensational journalese.

SP,

I was stopped by one airline, and at the other two pulled aside, pat/partial strip searched, they went through my Palm and looked at the names, went through my calendar, turned on my camera and looked at the photos on it, and looked through my contacts list on my phone, then asked me extremely detailed questions about who I would be seeing, where would I stay, have I been to this place or that place before? They asked me these questions while seperated from my kids and were asking the kids the questions seperately.

I had a friend who was formerly in the State Dept. who told me I was on a list, and I was accidentally told that I came up "S1" by a clerk at USAIR. (I asked about S1 and he said 'forget that') I have spoken with the airline people and they all said 'We can not discuss this' when I ask about it. They won't say I am or am not on a list, but last year United refused to sell me a ticket. I then started a correspondence and call marathon with them (still getting 'We can't discuss this with you" after 2 1/2 hours on the phone with them), but I was told later that they would sell me the ticket. We'll see if I can get on the plane next month!

I met another preppy woman who had the exact problems I have with the airlines. Perhaps our names are a little too white bread?

Strangely, I have no problem coming back in at customs. They always smile, ask how my vacation was and wave me through.

Look at the four most recent headlines on Bllomberg:

* U.S. Stocks Finish Worst Week in Four Years as Global Investors Avoid Risk

* New Century Faces Criminal Accounting Probe; Fremont Quits Subprime Market

* Subprime Mortgage Market Needs Closer Scrutiny as Defaults Rise, Fed Says

* Consumer Confidence in U.S. Falls From Two-Year High on Rising Fuel Prices

PAR,

Thank you. Do you know how quickly prices stalled/dropped in the '89 housing bust here? Was there the long lag like now?

SP,

I should clarify that former State Dept friend was guessing I was on a list, he didn't have a list in front of him, it just sounded like it to him.

PAR,

Thanks. It could be much uglier this time, with the run up and the subprime issue. No Loma Prieta, but many 4.0s might make people a bit jittery without actually taking housing off the market...

PAR,

Then I guess it's a Great Time To Buy (TM).

Why Peter P will never be an astronaut (don't worry, involves no donkeys)

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/11999

Why Peter P will never be an astronaut (don’t worry, involves no donkeys)

No sushi in space?

SFWoman Says:

> PAR, Thank you. Do you know how quickly prices stalled/
> dropped in the ‘89 housing bust here? Was there the
> long lag like now?

Things were still booming in CA in 1989 slowed in 1990 and as I have said in the past I did not see anything start to drop until after “Operation Desert Shield” became “Operation Desert Storm” in early 1991. It was a slow drop in 1992 with not many foreclosures until 1993…

P.S. There was a "Loma Prieta" impact in 1989 on a small number of areas (like 94123 landfill and Foster City/Redwood Shores)...

FAB,

The reports I have seen show the peak in Q4 1989.

I saw the earthquake damage insurance maps of SF before I bought my place. (No ABAG online to research at the time) Surprisingly there was damage in several neighborhoods. There were a lot of chimneys that fell off of houses in the Haight and Mission. I had a friend who's Noe Valley house suffered a lot of damage (and she had closed on it three weeks earlier! Ouch!)

To me the ISS is a not a good use of resources. What's the point?

I was looking at the S&P Case/Shiller Index numbers for SF Bay Area again and realized I made a mistake in reporting the trough.
Peak: 75.15 June 1990
Low: 65.79 Feb 1994 (not 65.92 March 1996 as I previously reported. This is a correct datapoint, though not the low. Hey, whats .13 index points among friends -- only two years oscillating in the trough)
This actually jibes a bit more nicely with PARs National City data.

To answer SFWoman's question, over half the drop happened fairly quickly in under a year. By April 1991 the index was at 69.46. It then oscillates seasonally down to hit the low about 3 years later.
Again, if you bought at peak last time, nominal prices weren’t above water until October 1997 (Index at 75.22).

SP,

"Location, location, location. :-)"

They're not making more vacuum of space, yah know. (Oh wait!)

What is this super rabbit of which you speak?

Academia is full of idiots and fools, just like other walks of life. It's good practice for life.

GC,

Well, you're just hiring interns, so the risk of a bad hire is not too extreme.

GC,

How are you going to find a wife if you stick around here so much? :) You need to hit the bars and go look for that millionaire Youtube HR assistant who is semi doable in dim lighting.

I'm selling my karma, if anyone needs a little extra. Buy now and get a handful of my conscious tossed in for free (normally a $19.99 value).

I'm selling my soul. ($20 for 20%!) Shareholders can collect if my soul makes a profit.

SFWoman Says:

> FAB, The reports I have seen show
> the peak in Q4 1989.

I was commenting from memory but the link below supports my comment that “things were booming in CA in 1989” (notice the start and end points of the CA markets in 1989 on the graph). Since not many people seem to actually remember how bad the early 90’s were for real estate investors I can’t even imagine how bad things will get in the next few years as the market corrects.

http://tinyurl.com/2m2wgu