patrick.net

ch_tah says

Klarek essentially tried to call me an idiot for thinking that higher rates and higher prices can go hand-in-hand,

No, I called you an idiot for saying that there was a causation and effect: higher rates will lead to higher prices. That's what you said. Don't try to back-peddle or imply that the author of the above article is saying the same thing.

ch_tah says

Maybe they didn’t predict it publicly, but plenty seemed to know about it privately.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602255.html

Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust

No, he did not know about it. That's two federal reserve chairs in a row that couldn't see a leveraged asset bubble large enough to potentially destroy the American and maybe even world economy. Yet you're slobbering all over them based on their SAT scores and Ivy League degrees. There are plenty of mechanics and barbers out there that are just as smart as Bernanke and DID see this coming.

Mr.Fantastic says

I think Troy just settled that issue. Next?

Yes, he did. In my favor. 1Q 2009 was at 16.5T, 1Q 2010 was at 17.1T.

So a rise of ~5% is a crash in your book?

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

I think Troy just settled that issue. Next?

Yes, he did. In my favor. 1Q 2009 was at 16.5T, 1Q 2010 was at 17.1T.
So a rise of ~5% is a crash in your book?

And in 3Q2010?

We weren't talking about 3Q2010.

klarek says

ch_tah says

Klarek essentially tried to call me an idiot for thinking that higher rates and higher prices can go hand-in-hand,

No, I called you an idiot for saying that there was a causation and effect: higher rates will lead to higher prices. That’s what you said. Don’t try to back-peddle or imply that the author of the above article is saying the same thing.

Here's what I said, word for word, no spin (thread: November Case Shiller, Thurs 16 Dec 2010):
1) mortgage rates are still very low, rising rates arguably could cause people to rush to purchase.

The article I cited practically said the exact same thing. You can try to spin it a different way and keep accusing me of backpeddling, but those are my exact words. You, Serpentor, anon just lie about stuff to attempt to diminish an opposing view. Your view very well could be right. I just disagree at this point in time. All of your egos must be huge considering you've been wrong twice in the past few years and at least two of you are constantly talking about areas you can't even afford. Anon wants to buy a house for $300k, and he's discussing Palo Alto and Los Altos. Yeah, and I'm the one hoping. You guys are a joke.

ch_tah says

Here’s what I said, word for word, no spin (thread: November Case Shiller, Thurs 16 Dec 2010):
1) mortgage rates are still very low, rising rates arguably could cause people to rush to purchase.

Actually, there is some spin there. Quote:

ch_tah says

Reasons why market will stay flat or go up:

1) mortgage rates are still very low, rising rates arguably could cause people to rush to purchase.

You're stating that rising interest rates can cause prices to increase. That is absolutely absurd, mathematically and economically.

ch_tah says

The article I cited practically said the exact same thing.

No it did not. The article inferred that the fear of higher rates could cause people to rush to buy. That is a short term phenomenon and the temporary demand shift has absolutely zero impact on long term prices. What does have a long term impact is that higher rates significantly decrease the leveraged purchasing power of borrowers. This is undeniable, and thus fully contradicts your assertions.

ch_tah says

All of your egos must be huge considering you’ve been wrong twice in the past few years and at least two of you are constantly talking about areas you can’t even afford.

Where have I been wrong? There is no fulfillment of ego on my end. You're the one that purchased out of a shortened patience for the market to correct. Only after the fact are you now conjuring up completely absurd reasons that prices will increase. Your attempt to twist the meaning of an OPINION article into your absurd inference is pathetic straw-grasping.

I went back and checked out that article Ch_tah quoted. this supposed fancy degreed person that wrote the article is a freakin reporter. HAHAHAHA. you are taking the opinion of a reporter as word of god? who cares if she as a business degree from Columbia. you know who also has a MBA degree from Columbia? My little cousin who comes to me for advice. Did she predict the crash, no, there's no magic fortune telling potion that they give you at fancy schools to make you all knowing.

Short term affect of the FEAR of rates going up is a theory (and a sales technique by the Realtors), and only that. It may work on some people, but most likely they have already succumbed to the FEAR of "buy now or be priced out forever" sales technique during the bubble.

Serpentor says

Short term affect of the FEAR of rates going up is a theory (and a sales technique by the Realtors), and only that. It may work on some people, but most likely they have already succumbed to the FEAR of “buy now or be priced out forever” sales technique during the bubble.

They wouldn't necessarily be the same person since back then they might have been in college or unable* to buy, but the stupidity level in their rationale is the same. Say it is true, that the fear of escalating rates drives some people into the market. What does that mean for prices overall? Nothing. Either they buy now or down the road, beyond the short-term the shift in demand does bupkis to prices. What does matter is the significant decrease in the buyers' ability to purchase. Notice Ch_tah completely ignores this powerful market force.

*anybody with a pulse could have bought

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

We weren’t talking about 3Q2010.

Yeah, you probably shouldn’t because it would only sink your point deeper.

No--actually it has nothing to do with my point at all. My point was housing didn't crash in 2009. What housing did in 2010 or 2003 or 1997 has no bearing at all.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

es, he did. In my favor. 1Q 2009 was at 16.5T, 1Q 2010 was at 17.1T.
So a rise of ~5% is a crash in your book?

You better hope the Gov’t keeps handing out tax credits so you can continue to “prove your point”.

You really don't get it.

klarek says

What does matter is the significant decrease in the buyers’ ability to purchase. Notice Ch_tah completely ignores this powerful market force.

Actually what matters is why the interest rates are going up.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu just proved he simply isn’t educated about market forces and the housing market in general.

really? Usually if you make an accusion like that, you're nice enough to identify why you believe that.. I'm guessing you didn't because you know that you are wrong..

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu just proved he simply isn’t educated about market forces and the housing market in general.

really? Usually if you make an accusion like that, you’re nice enough to identify why you believe that.. I’m guessing you didn’t because you know that you are wrong..

When it’s this obvious, further identification really isn’t needed. That, and pleasantry is wasted upon the clueless.

That's what I figured. You can go back to your fantasy world where prices crashed in 2009... I'll try not to bother you so you have to face reality again.

Serpentor says

tatupu70 says

Serpentor says

Did prices in homes go up in 2009, in general prices crashed. Did some areas go up some because of goverment intervention? most likely, but in general prices crashed.

You really do live in a fantasy world. Prices generally went up. About 10%.
Please post ANY article saying prices “crashed” in 2009. Anything. The crickets are standing by…

Right.. just because I misspoke about one year, I live in a fantasy world… has the underlying problem been fixed? How about massive intervention by the government, vast majority of mortgages backed by FHA, massive printing of money, tax credit handouts? Is that the only thing you can find to criticize me on?

Nope--my main criticism was that you attribute motives to other posters and think that people post here in hopes of affecting the overall housing market.

Yes, I think the underlying problem has been mostly fixed. Underwriting standards have been significanly tightened. There will still be higher than normal foreclosure levels for some time, but they will be highly localized to certain areas. Prices will fall in those areas.

Tatupu...Prices are going to fall because a lot of people over-leveraged on their purchases. Very many bought because they got suckered into the idea of it being an investment.... buy and hold for a few years and sell.

My aunt did that. She bought a property for 650,000 (stupidly) beause she wanted to flip it in 5 years to a bigger idiot. She had no common business sense, and well she lost several years of her life and ballooned payments up to a bank and of course foreclosed.

An average person still cannot afford what houses are on the market for. Last year they were all 499 in our area, this year they are all at 399... some are going slowly into 349 bracket. And the reason I know it will go down, because it was originally worth 210 thousand before the ponzi scheme came to life driving the prices up. So it's about another year and a half of price reductions and Bernanke printing money to give to the banks to make them look good on paper.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

Tatupu…Prices are going to fall because a lot of people over-leveraged on their purchases. Very many bought because they got suckered into the idea of it being an investment…. buy and hold for a few years and sell.

No--that's why they have already fallen. Chris_In_LosAngeles says

An average person still cannot afford what houses are on the market for

That may be true in LA--but it's not true in many, many areas of the US.

Mr.Fantastic says

Not all of us want to live in the midwest, high dessert, or other podunk areas. If you had stated that earlier, you wouldn’t have wasted so much time.

Do I detect a note of superiority in that? Not all of us want to live in CA either. When I lived in CA., I think the most annoying part were all the conceited people out there. I'm very happy where I am, thank you.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Not all of us want to live in the midwest, high dessert, or other podunk areas. If you had stated that earlier, you wouldn’t have wasted so much time.

Do I detect a note of superiority in that? Not all of us want to live in CA either. When I lived in CA., I think the most annoying part were all the conceited people out there. I’m very happy where I am, thank you.

Too much defending, not convincing.

Defending? That's rich. You really do think everyone wants to live in CA, don't you? Hey--if you like it, that's all that matters, right?

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Anyone buying a house between 1995 and 2020 is toast. By then, though, the oil will run out and the price of food will start doubling every year as the big ag conglomerates put the squeeze on us. Starving tens of millions of unemployed will turn cannibal after the pets, shoes and discarded wallpaper are consumed. America will fragment into medieval fiefdoms ruled by psychopaths who’ve gathered up the most armaments, draft animals and horses. Rich Chinese tourists will arrive by the millions on hunting tours in which they’ll be free to shoot the survivors from helicopters for a fat fee - payable in Swiss francs.

LMAO We're also here for comic relief.

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Not all of us want to live in the midwest, high dessert, or other podunk areas. If you had stated that earlier, you wouldn’t have wasted so much time.

Do I detect a note of superiority in that? Not all of us want to live in CA either. When I lived in CA., I think the most annoying part were all the conceited people out there. I’m very happy where I am, thank you.

Too much defending, not convincing.

Defending? That’s rich. You really do think everyone wants to live in CA, don’t you? Hey–if you like it, that’s all that matters, right?

Still not convinced.

That makes sense because I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

tatupu70 says

Nope–my main criticism was that you attribute motives to other posters and think that people post here in hopes of affecting the overall housing market.
Yes, I think the underlying problem has been mostly fixed. Underwriting standards have been significanly tightened. There will still be higher than normal foreclosure levels for some time, but they will be highly localized to certain areas. Prices will fall in those areas.

Your main criticism noted and ignored, repeatedly. I have just as much right to state my opinion as anyone. so SUCK IT.

You are free to tell me how I should post, I'm free to ignore it and post whatever the fuck I want. :-)

The underlying problem has NOT been fixed. Underwriting standards have been fixed but the main problem is the huge number of mortgages that are either in foreclosure limbo, shadow inventory, underwater, or about to explode. not to mention the unemployment rate and the fact that the rates have been suppressed to artificially low levels... whatever, I feel like a broken record because people clearly are going to hear what they want to hear and ignore reality...no matter how many times you repeat it.

Mr.Fantastic says

Plausible deniability. You don’t have it.

Huh? What are you even trying to say?

Serpentor says

I feel like a broken record because people clearly are going to hear what they want to hear and ignore reality…no matter how many times you repeat it.

I know how you feel. I feel the same way....

Mr.Fantastic says

Oh I see. tatupu is trolling because he couldn’t afford to live in California. Nice.

Oh, I see. I can't afford it? You really think everyone wants to live in CA?? You need to get out more. Honestly.

tatupu70 says

Serpentor says

I feel like a broken record because people clearly are going to hear what they want to hear and ignore reality…no matter how many times you repeat it.

I know how you feel. I feel the same way….

Try again. This time try actually addressing the topic.

Mr.Fantastic says

Let’s see, you rented in NorCal, and tried to find affordable housing for your 100k salary, and found that it didn’t go very far. So you moved into the boonies and are happy with it. That’s fine. I think all of us who were able to stay in California are happy for you.

Not really. I was perfectly happy renting--my rent on a very nice house was less than my current payment. And I live in a large metro area now--believe it or not there are lots of very large cities in the other 49 states. Maybe you've heard of Chicago, or New York, or Philadelphia?

I'm sure you enjoy Irvine--everyone in the other 49 states is happy for you too!

Mr.Fantastic says

Yes but the fact was you couldn’t afford to live here (certainly not on your 100k salary) so you moved. So your opinion can’t really be trusted. It’s like a guy who says “Ferrari sucks” but can’t actually afford one. You’re that guy.

First of all--you don't know my salary. Or my wife's salary. Let's just say it was north of what you are proposing. But, more importantly, we didn't move because we were having a hard time making ends meet. Like I said in my previous post, my housing outlay in my current location is higher than what it was in CA. And our house in CA was nicer than what we are living in here.

So, nice try. I know you find it hard to believe that someone moved from CA because they didn't like it there, but believe me there are LOTS of people like me. I'm not sure why you are so offended by that thought. Do you identify yourself so closely with CA that it's a personal insult to you?

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

Yes but the fact was you couldn’t afford to live here (certainly not on your 100k salary) so you moved. So your opinion can’t really be trusted. It’s like a guy who says “Ferrari sucks” but can’t actually afford one. You’re that guy.

Like I said in my previous post, my housing outlay in my current location is higher than what it was in CA. And our house in CA was nicer than what we are living in here.

Good lord, where did you move to, Tokyo or Manhattan? Or maybe London? I can't think of anywhere that has worse housing stock for more money than CA.

Mr.Fantastic says

He’s also a liar. He clearly said his salary was 100k. He couldn’t afford to buy a house in California based on that, but now he’s supposedly living in a much more expensive area? I think tatupu has just been exposed.

Not at all. I just said my wife also worked and our household income was north of the salary you mentioned. I also said in the previous post that we lived very comfortably and rented a house in a very nice area. Where exactly did I lie?

Do you think that there aren't any nice areas outside of CA?

Mr.Fantastic says

He couldn’t afford to buy a house in California based on that, but now he’s supposedly living in a much more expensive area?

And I think you are missing the point. I could have bought a house if I wanted to, but I realized that it was MUCH cheaper to rent. So I rented. And pocketed the difference. That's what pat.net is all about.

Do you not understand this?

pkowen says

Good lord, where did you move to, Tokyo or Manhattan? Or maybe London? I can’t think of anywhere that has worse housing stock for more money than CA.

(edited). Nice areas exist in every metro region. And they are all expensive. Furthermore, I'm cheating a little because I'm comparing my rent with my mortgage payment so it's not exactly apples to apples, but it kind of is. It's housing cost to housing cost.

Mr.Fantastic says

Yes I do.
You RENTED a home here in the Bay Area, and saw that you couldn’t afford to buy one. So you moved to the podunks and bought a big house. Good for you.
Still, the fact is you couldn’t afford to stay here, and now you are in the podunks telling everyone who will listen “not everyone wants to live in California”, yet you tried and failed. Your opinion in invalid.

My lord. I live in one of the top 20 metro areas of the US. If that's podunkville to you, then so be it. I rented because it was cheaper to rent. I moved because I didn't like it there.

Seriously--why does it bother you so much that someone doesn't like CA?

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

He’s also a liar. He clearly said his salary was 100k. He couldn’t afford to buy a house in California based on that, but now he’s supposedly living in a much more expensive area? I think tatupu has just been exposed.

Not at all. I just said my wife also worked

That’s even worse. You now have a double income requirement just to live in your house in the podunks. I don’t understand how that makes things better.
Also you said you “rented” because you chose to, that may be true, but even if you tried to buy, you wouldn’t be able to afford it at 100k.

Are you trying to put me down because I made $100K when I lived out there? Wow--you got me. I feel so inadequate. Because you know, that's how I measure someone--by their paycheck.

And why is rented in quotes? I think you should have put chose in quotation marks because I assume you are implying that I rented out of necessity and not choice. So, despite being an avid reader of pat.net, you think I can't figure out renting was MUCH cheaper than buying?

Seriously--if you're trying to remind me why I didn't like it out there, you're doing a pretty good job.

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

tatupu70 says

Mr.Fantastic says

He’s also a liar. He clearly said his salary was 100k. He couldn’t afford to buy a house in California based on that, but now he’s supposedly living in a much more expensive area? I think tatupu has just been exposed.

Not at all. I just said my wife also worked

That’s even worse. You now have a double income requirement just to live in your house in the podunks. I don’t understand how that makes things better.
Also you said you “rented” because you chose to, that may be true, but even if you tried to buy, you wouldn’t be able to afford it at 100k.

Are you trying to put me down because I made $100K when I lived out there? Wow–you got me. I feel so inadequate. Because you know, that’s how I measure someone–by their paycheck.
And why is rented in quotes? I think you should have put chose in quotation marks because I assume you are implying that I rented out of necessity and not choice. So, despite being an avid reader of pat.net, you think I can’t figure out renting was MUCH cheaper than buying?
Seriously–if you’re trying to remind me why I didn’t like it out there, you’re doing a pretty good job.

It is this kind of mindless back and forth, tit for tat, waste of time crap is what has caused so many to leave Patrick.net and not post or even read anymore. I have had a few past posters and readers tell me that the incessant nitpicking, bullying, rude discourse, name calling, cyber fighting, egotistical and hollier than thou attitudes on here had just become too much and I'm sure that more and more are feeling the same way.

that's, more or less, how all forums are. you have to sift through the noise to find the good information.

if you can't handle it, you don't belong on the internet. There is always the Disney channel for all your feel good, pc, reality escaping needs.

I agree. If Mr. Fantastik wants to make an ass out himself, then he can have at it. I have no problem showing him for what he is...

This forum could be very frustrating experience for bulls. :)

lol at bubblesitter.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/12/house-prices-and-months-of-supply-and.html

for the US(represented by 20 cities for CS) not SF

• This is worth repeating: the real price indexes(both CS and CoreLogic) are at post-bubble lows. Those who argued prices bottomed some time ago are already wrong in real terms, and will probably be wrong in nominal terms soon.