Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can appreciate both points of view. But while I was reading the posts I was thinking that Bear Stearns employed thousands of financial analysts and probably only a few engineer/realtors and look what that got them. (Sorry, Clark, i could not resist that one.)
If we all thought alike, then there would not be the great debate i am witnessing here, nor would we need either realtors or financial analysts to try and make sense of the markets. Job titles are only good on a business card, they don't mean s#$t otherwise, so stop bandying them about like they are swords to be drawn in battle, and please, keep the analysis coming!
This is probably the best thread I have seen on here since joining and am really enjoying it. I just signed on a house today in Lone Mountain so I am rooting for OleCapt, but think Clark has some good points. We did use a realtor and I really think he went above and beyond, we argued and he argued and got the house we wanted in the end for far less than we were looking to spend. I hope the price zooms upward, LOL.
Well you certainly did not use the right RE Agent. But we will forgive you for buying in the right place...
Lone Mountain...no place better. (But that is only true if you are a somewhat libertarian free thinker who abhors normal urban civilization)
There are two...Business consultants and financial analysts. of it.
So let me get this straight, you promote your credentials to do "financial analysis" based on your training as an engineer, and proceed to make some kind of ignorant man's strawman argument to win a debate centering around valuation/financial analysis by dismissing the expertise of the person with direct, relevant training?
I've known and worked with engineers in the past. Accounting and valuation might as well have been a foreign language to them. Nothing to do with smarts, just different training and thought processes.
Here I tried to get you to legitimately expand on your predictions because I thought you might have some valuable insight. You respond by speaking down to me, butchering the definition of a catalyst in the process, and now apparently trying to win an argument on economics/finance by attacking the foundations of the discipline.
So, let me get this straight...When you talk about investments and discuss catalysts, you are referring to the engineering/chemistry defnition and not the, um, investment definition. When you talk about markets, you are talking volume and not the common perspective of returns. I think I got it now. I'm sorry, my confusion is all clearly my fault.
You are simply arguing with the data. May is up over April. It appears that June is up over May though it may still turn out to be the same. I don't project the market was up in May over April...it was. Enough to declare botton...nope. Enough to say we are close. Yup. Griswold could be right...it is a porch on the way down and after a little while the down will continue...but evidence that is true? Don't hold your breath.
A continuing down trend is one of the many possible directions from here. I consider it to have the same probability as a massive price rise.
We gonna hunker down here for a while in indecisiveville. Wandering around figuring out where to go next. Nothing interesting is likely though.
Clark probably considers this bullish. I think it neutral. Decide for yourself.
Pardon me for attempting to raise this discussion to a level of intelligence. Any monkey can look at the data. It is what it is. I want to know what it means and why. That is something you are clearly incapable of articulating. Do you really think I need you to tell me what the data is? What were you rambling on about analysts not adding value?
I was going to call this "Banks March Us Into Depression," or maybe more fitting is . . . "Complete Collapse of US Banking System." Folks, that is what we are looking at. I don't see any way around it. What we're seeing here in Florida, is your crystal ball. And what happens here, is coming to a town near you . . . soon.
Quote:
Unfortunately, banks are not making a realistic effort to address the crisis. That may be because they cannot. As the banks and builders have announced write down after write down, my mantra has been . . . and continues to be . . . NOT ENOUGH - NOT ENOUGH - NOT ENOUGH. I still believe that. The builders and the banks have underestimated the magnitude of the problem, and they continue to do so. Analysts continue to look at the rear-view mirror and attempt to manipulate numbers based misguided historical assumptions. NAR and the economists continue to twist the numbers, lie and then slip in prior-month adjustments without actually comparing apples to apples.
Quote:
Banks cannot afford to take 50-75% hits on mortgages, and that is exactly what is happening. The precipice is here, and we are on it. Recent reports about home sales rebounding are insignificant, because no one is accurately describing the growing inventory build-up. Banks simply don't have the margins to deal with this crisis. And for that reason, we will see massive bank failures and this will snowball into a complete economic meltdown. If you have an argument against this scenario, I'd love to debate you on a live conference call.
You can listen to the coming June 26th conference call by registering through his website. Have at it if you would like to debate him.
So let me get this straight, you promote your credentials to do "financial analysis" based on your training as an engineer, and proceed to make some kind of ignorant man's strawman argument to win a debate centering around valuation/financial analysis by dismissing the expertise of the person with direct, relevant training?
No my friend. I am simply debating whether you have any "credenitial".
Is there such a thing as a "financial analyst"? Do they have some capabilities that would qualify them to deal with trends in the residental real estate market? Most I have known, including some incredibly successful ones...sold securities to the unknowing.
Quote:
I've known and worked with engineers in the past. Accounting and valuation might as well have been a foreign language to them. Nothing to do with smarts, just different training and thought processes.
Nonsense. I dealt with issues like the siting of plants. And the financial ramifications of closing them. Well skilled MBAs who had worked a broad front were useful. An "analyst" in that context was one who ran down and ginned the numbers. Useful more for their ability to sift through all the garbage to build up the required data base. Kind of smart garbage sifters.
Quote:
Here I tried to get you to legitimately expand on your predictions because I thought you might have some valuable insight. You respond by speaking down to me, butchering the definition of a catalyst in the process, and now apparently trying to win an argument on economics/finance by attacking the foundations of the discipline.
Well no. You came on strongly suggesting it is a discipline. I doubt it. It is a title for those who sell securities.
Quote:
So, let me get this straight...When you talk about investments and discuss catalysts, you are referring to the engineering/chemistry defnition and not the, um, investment definition. When you talk about markets, you are talking volume and not the common perspective of returns. I think I got it now. I'm sorry, my confusion is all clearly my fault.
If you want to borrow terms respect their meanings. Otherwise invent your own. It is not hard. I have done at least a few hundred that worked in their limited sphere.
I never talk about investments. That is what throws you. I sell homes. Yes it has a bit of investment to it. But it is not the driving force. I worry about the local school for goodness sake. I worry about the noise of nearby streets.
I just signed on a house today in Lone Mountain so I am rooting for OleCapt, but think Clark has some good points. We did use a realtor and I really think he went above and beyond, we argued and he argued and got the house we wanted in the end for far less than we were looking to spend. I hope the price zooms upward, LOL.
Congrats on the house.
It's as much about opportunity cost and lifestyle choice. I wouldn't worry about timing the bottom. Buying a home, in most times in most parts of the countries, is really a savings vehicle and not an investment vehicle, which explains the favorable tax status on mortgages. Since you'd be paying rent anyway, kind of the worst-case long-run scenario is you get more value for your "rent" and a lousy 2% (or whatever inflation trends) annualized return on your capital. That's why I believe in interest-only (with a responsible loan amount) to leverage that 2%. To me it's STILL a no-brainer (provided you can get an interest only loan), but obviously the flippers and those who "stretched" exposed themselves to credit risk when they couldn't weather the margin calls.
Another thing to consider is, ultimately, buying/selling outside of the peaks and troughs is nothing more than a paper gain/loss until you trade down later in life. When you sell at depressed values, you're buying at depressed values and vice versa in peaks. So until you extract/pay real equity by trading up or down you haven't realized or exposed yourself to real loss from a net wealth perspective.
So be happy with your purchase and don't sweat who is right or wrong.
Location: central, between Pepe's Tacos and Roberto's
2,086 posts, read 6,845,674 times
Reputation: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkGrisowld
Congrats on the house.
It's as much about opportunity cost and lifestyle choice. I wouldn't worry about timing the bottom. Buying a home, in most times in most parts of the countries, is really a savings vehicle and not an investment vehicle, which explains the favorable tax status on mortgages. Since you'd be paying rent anyway, kind of the worst-case long-run scenario is you get more value for your "rent" and a lousy 2% (or whatever inflation trends) annualized return on your capital. That's why I believe in interest-only (with a responsible loan amount) to leverage that 2%. To me it's STILL a no-brainer (provided you can get an interest only loan), but obviously the flippers and those who "stretched" exposed themselves to credit risk when they couldn't weather the margin calls.
Another thing to consider is, ultimately, buying/selling outside of the peaks and troughs is nothing more than a paper gain/loss until you trade down later in life. When you sell at depressed values, you're buying at depressed values and vice versa in peaks. So until you extract/pay real equity by trading up or down you haven't realized or exposed yourself to real loss from a net wealth perspective.
So be happy with your purchase and don't sweat who is right or wrong.
No my friend. I am simply debating whether you have any "credenitial".
Is there such a thing as a "financial analyst"? Do they have some capabilities that would qualify them to deal with trends in the residental real estate market? Most I have known, including some incredibly successful ones...sold securities to the unknowing.
Nonsense. I dealt with issues like the siting of plants. And the financial ramifications of closing them. Well skilled MBAs who had worked a broad front were useful. An "analyst" in that context was one who ran down and ginned the numbers. Useful more for their ability to sift through all the garbage to build up the required data base. Kind of smart garbage sifters.
Well no. You came on strongly suggesting it is a discipline. I doubt it. It is a title for those who sell securities.
If you want to borrow terms respect their meanings. Otherwise invent your own. It is not hard. I have done at least a few hundred that worked in their limited sphere.
I never talk about investments. That is what throws you. I sell homes. Yes it has a bit of investment to it. But it is not the driving force. I worry about the local school for goodness sake. I worry about the noise of nearby streets.
I sell homes...not investments.
Give me a freaking break. I didn't "borrow" the meaning of catalyst. It's a long-established and well known term outside of chemistry. I've used a generally accepted alternative definition of the word.
And I never said I sell securities. "Financial Analyst" is not merely a title for people selling securities, in fact it is a very generic term that covers a much broader set of professionals who work in a finance function. It is sometimes a title, but more often a job description, like engineer.
I could sit here and throw out my qualifications (as you have attempted). I only had to toss that out when you laughably tried to imply your analysis as an engineer translated to analyzing markets and valuations (something I probably let slide if you don't simulataneously go on the attack without knowing me from Adam). I'm well prepared to establish my credentials by arguing with supporting facts and strong logic. I don't try to "win" arguments by debating and assuming the qualifications of the participants. The merits of the argument do that. It's really quite comical that this started by my asking you for some further insights to support your predictions, and your first response is to make assumptions about my credentials and attack them. You have "analytical" training, what does that say about YOUR credentials? I'm not a real estate expert, which is why I engaged you. Sadly, that first assumption may have been my most egregious one.
You can listen to the coming June 26th conference call by registering through his website. Have at it if you would like to debate him.
Interesting stuff. Can't say I agree. Perma-bears like Stephen Roach and Bill Gross have been preaching housing as the pied piper to doom for several years. I don't go nearly that far. Some pain, to be sure, but I'm only seeing a relatively mild and brief recession. "Muddle through" economy is in vogue, and I think that's a pretty accurate description of my stance. Years of sub-par growth, but growth nonetheless.
I think Japan is probably simultaneously the best and worst example. It was quite bad there for a long time (heck, still is), and teetered on far worse. But there are a variety of reasons not appropriate for this thread about why Japan is not a good comparison. There are lessons and insights there, no doubt, but god forbid it would actually be a good parallel.
The 800lb gorilla in the room is really the aging workforce and insolvency of social security. Unfortunately, it makes the housing bubble look like barely a speed bump. But another time.
Interesting stuff. Can't say I agree. Perma-bears like Stephen Roach and Bill Gross have been preaching housing as the pied piper to doom for several years. I don't go nearly that far. Some pain, to be sure, but I'm only seeing a relatively mild and brief recession. "Muddle through" economy is in vogue, and I think that's a pretty accurate description of my stance. Years of sub-par growth, but growth nonetheless.
I think Japan is probably simultaneously the best and worst example. It was quite bad there for a long time (heck, still is), and teetered on far worse. But there are a variety of reasons not appropriate for this thread about why Japan is not a good comparison. There are lessons and insights there, no doubt, but god forbid it would actually be a good parallel.
The 800lb gorilla in the room is really the aging workforce and insolvency of social security. Unfortunately, it makes the housing bubble look like barely a speed bump. But another time.
If it was just housing I wouldn't be as concerned. It's the unemployment rate jumping, much higher food and oil costs, costs of other goods that haven't been raised yet but will, and people already up to their butts in debt. The Feds also already warning us to expect larger bank failures than we've had so far.
And yeah, the aging population and all that entails is another sledgehammer to come, although at this particular moment I'm more worried about oil prices. To me that is the pied piper to doom and it's playing its tune right now. If the price goes higher, which many seem to think it will, the whole house folds IMO. Even if it holds it's obviously no bargain, lol. Our country depends on cheap oil, it's just the way we have it set up, the infrastructure.
I don't think we'll muddle through this one. Although hey, it's not like I'm sitting here with all the info that goes into what makes our economy tick, and all the effects that tweedledum has on tweedledee and back at him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
