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.
Everybody is now an expert. Wonder how much he got paid to speak at that "seminar" full of investors, which by the way, the reporter subtlely mentioned that they manage/handle "billions" each year, of investments. Did ya catch that? Please!
(separate post)
As someone else said on another thread, it really is self serving, really. And as I said, I wonder how many THOUSANDS he got for standing in a room full of "investors" and showing all of his fancy charts- I would guess an obnoxious amount. Hell, I bet he got a nice chunk from CBS/60 min. as well.
The expert with the "fancy charts" has a bio:
"Mr. Tilson writes a regular column on value investing for the Financial Times and Kiplinger's, has written for the Motley Fool and TheStreet.com, was one of the authors of Poor Charlie’s Almanack, the definitive book on Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charlie Munger, and teaches financial statement analysis and business valuation for the Dickie Group. He was one of five investors included in SmartMoney’s Power 30, was named by Institutional Investor as one of 20 Rising Stars, has appeared many times on CNBC, Bloomberg TV, Fox Business Network, Lou Dobbs Moneyline and Wall $treet Week, was on the cover of the July 2007 Kiplinger’s, has been profiled by the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, and has spoken widely on value investing and behavioral finance"
"Prior to launching his investment career in 1999, Mr. Tilson spent five years working with Harvard Business School Professor Michael E. Porter studying the competitiveness of inner cities and inner-city-based companies nationwide."
"Mr. Tilson received an MBA with High Distinction from the Harvard Business School, where he was elected a Baker Scholar (top 5% of class), and graduated magna *** laude from Harvard College, with a bachelor’s degree in Government."
You imply that he acted out of self-interest in his predictions. Who would you say is acting more out of self-interest-- a guy like this, who's job it is to make sure that his investors make (and not lose) money or someone whose livelihood depends on the buying and selling of real estate like, oh let's say, Lawrence Yun.
I'll take the Harvard MBA who millionaires listen to over the real estate shill who predicted the market would rebound in 2007. And every quarter since.
Real data and objective sources. Anything else is garbage.
Awesome post!!! Thanks for giving me hope that their are more "reasonable" people out in our society and country. It's sad, really, how so many, at least on this forum want everything to "be this bad" and hope that they are correct and don't have to eat their words. As someone else said on another thread, it really is self serving, really. And as I said, I wonder how many THOUSANDS he got for standing in a room full of "investors" and showing all of his fancy charts- I would guess an obnoxious amount. Hell, I bet he got a nice chunk from CBS/60 min. as well.
you just don't get it fmv, not all of us see home affordability as a bad thing. btw, i don't consider chaining yourself to a desk for 30 years affordability! prices need to come down so that they can be affordable again.
Happy, while I understand your impression of what's going on, you are misunderstanding the effects of the "real estate" predictions. Many went out and "bought" because they could at that time, when previously were not able since they were turned down (by the banks/mtg. co.) in a "normal market". No one was swearing by the predictions, just taking advantage of them, or so they thought. And I think we'd ALL be surprised by just how many more "rabbits" our government has. Now if we can just get the selfish banks to cooperate and share all that money our "magic government" gave them!
you seem to think the reckless lending standards of the last 10 years were normal. the problem is that i understand normal to be something different ie banks verify income and banks lend within certain parameters(3:1)! liar loans, teaser rates, alt-a's, subprime, 1% rates, 7/8/9/10:1 loan to income is not rational lending practice.
you seem to think the reckless lending standards of the last 10 years were normal. the problem is that i understand normal to be something different ie banks verify income and banks lend within certain parameters(3:1)! liar loans, teaser rates, alt-a's, subprime, 1% rates, 7/8/9/10:1 loan to income is not rational lending practice.
I don't think this at all, quite the contrary. The problem is, now a conventional, traditional buyer has to "jump through more hoops" than EVER in history, because of the reckless lending/borrowing. They trust no one and one little blemish on anyone's credit is now being picked apart. We know this since my sister and her husband are in the middle of buying. They had a late payment on their Macy's card- almost 5 years ago and you'd think they defaulted on their mortgage. Scores on in the high 700's with one of the 3 major credit score co. giving them over 800. It's rediculous, really! And they are putting almost 30% down. So this is what I mean. And I've heard this repeatedly, throughout the banking industry. We have banker friends who will confirm that their own companies/employers have NO intention of loaning any of the money they have been given, at least not right now. Why would they? They are not going to be making any money off these loans like they were 5-10 years ago!
Absolute lunacy these housing forecasts. It has NEVER been the case that ANYONE could accurately predict what is going to happen in the housing market. Different presidential administration, different economic activity per state per city in each state, varying demographics, changing priorities
Alexus, it's certainly hard to predict these things accurately, but it is possible to make estimates, even good ones. That's what Housing Predictor does, based on an analysis taking into account all the things you mention above.
I've been following them for a couple years now, and although they're not dead-center on their predictions, they are definitely ball-park, even "reasonably-accurate" ballpark.
Interesting analysis and read. However, perhaps I would give them more credibility if they knew the difference between "effect" and "affect". It's simple grammar.
That's not entirely true. There are campers on both side of the fence. I think most are skeptical that prices will fall to what they were in 2000 but if you follow trends I think we'll probably get a market adjustment every 20-30 years. The last adjustment was early 90s' and now it's been about 20 years so we were due for another. Plenty of people are going to make a lot of money over the next couple of years on real estate and stocks.
In the next 10 years, perhaps. Next couple of years? No way in h-e-double hockey sticks.
Not only that, but banks shouldn't be forced to lend money. There were no prior concessions for this handout money. If the gubmint decided to change their mind and order/compel the banks to lend with it, they should have stipulated this ahead of time.
Or stated alternatively, "effect" is a noun and "affect" is a verb.
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.
