4.25 Yrs. SoCal RE Inventory – Mr. Mortgage’s New Video on SoCal

[Anonymous]

I didnt see that…HRB, AGO and NLY are my best short ideas still. That is of course along with WFC, WB, LEH, MER, MS, GSC – hahahaha.

[HeadedHome]

I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of your assumptions, but with so many variables I think your forecasts are fairly reasonable, if one were to assume a linear progression of events. We would also have to assume there would be no significant influence from outside governmental policies and the like. It seems unlikely to me that the government will be able to resist the temptation to become involved in some meaningful (if not necessarily productive) way.

Personally I don’t see it playing out to quite the dire level as predicted (i.e., 4.2 yrs), but I think the whole of your research is certainly more sound than anything I’ve seen on any of the major traditional media networks.

With regard to what and when to share, I think you have to decide in your own mind who you and your brand are. You could be the crazy guy with the most dire, absolute worst case scenarios (who will be quickly forgotten once any perception of light is seen at the end of the tunnel). Personally, however, I think you are well positioned to become more established as a credible, research-based (if bearish) RE resource with staying power in any market. I’d choose the latter, and try and avoid excessively specific and unknowable predictions (you might not like my comments, but I think a lot of people without the inclination to research your whole perspective will hear a number like 4.2 yrs and quickly write you off. I’m sure network economists would write this number and formula off as simplistic, which frankly, it is). So maybe national, but trumpet the real issues which you have identified. I think there are a lot of people who need to hear the truth, and CNBC certainly isn’t providing it. Just my $.02, and only because you asked.

So keep up the research, and I at least will keep that salary of stars flowing.

Rob Dizzle

[HeadedHome]

I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of your assumptions, but with so many variables I think your forecasts are fairly reasonable, if one were to assume a linear progression of events. We would also have to assume there would be no significant influence from outside governmental policies and the like. It seems unlikely to me that the government will be able to resist the temptation to become involved in some meaningful (if not necessarily productive) way.

Personally I don’t see it playing out to quite the dire level as predicted (i.e., 4.2 yrs), but I think the whole of your research is certainly more sound than anything I’ve seen on any of the major traditional media networks.

With regard to what and when to share, I think you have to decide in your own mind who you and your brand are. You could be the crazy guy with the most dire, absolute worst case scenarios (who will be quickly forgotten once any perception of light is seen at the end of the tunnel). Personally, however, I think you are well positioned to become more established as a credible, research-based (if bearish) RE resource with staying power in any market. I’d choose the latter, and try and avoid excessively specific and unknowable predictions (you might not like my comments, but I think a lot of people without the inclination to research your whole perspective will hear a number like 4.2 yrs and quickly write you off. I’m sure network economists would write this number and formula off as simplistic, which frankly, it is). So maybe national, but trumpet the real issues which you have identified. I think there are a lot of people who need to hear the truth, and CNBC certainly isn’t providing it. Just my $.02, and only because you asked.

So keep up the research, and I at least will keep that salary of stars flowing.

Rob Dizzle

[HeadedHome]

I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of your assumptions, but with so many variables I think your forecasts are fairly reasonable, if one were to assume a linear progression of events. We would also have to assume there would be no significant influence from outside governmental policies and the like. It seems unlikely to me that the government will be able to resist the temptation to become involved in some meaningful (if not necessarily productive) way.

Personally I don’t see it playing out to quite the dire level as predicted (i.e., 4.2 yrs), but I think the whole of your research is certainly more sound than anything I’ve seen on any of the major traditional media networks.

With regard to what and when to share, I think you have to decide in your own mind who you and your brand are. You could be the crazy guy with the most dire, absolute worst case scenarios (who will be quickly forgotten once any perception of light is seen at the end of the tunnel). Personally, however, I think you are well positioned to become more established as a credible, research-based (if bearish) RE resource with staying power in any market. I’d choose the latter, and try and avoid excessively specific and unknowable predictions (you might not like my comments, but I think a lot of people without the inclination to research your whole perspective will hear a number like 4.2 yrs and quickly write you off. I’m sure network economists would write this number and formula off as simplistic, which frankly, it is). So maybe national, but trumpet the real issues which you have identified. I think there are a lot of people who need to hear the truth, and CNBC certainly isn’t providing it. Just my $.02, and only because you asked.

So keep up the research, and I at least will keep that salary of stars flowing.

Rob Dizzle

[HeadedHome]

I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of your assumptions, but with so many variables I think your forecasts are fairly reasonable, if one were to assume a linear progression of events. We would also have to assume there would be no significant influence from outside governmental policies and the like. It seems unlikely to me that the government will be able to resist the temptation to become involved in some meaningful (if not necessarily productive) way.

Personally I don’t see it playing out to quite the dire level as predicted (i.e., 4.2 yrs), but I think the whole of your research is certainly more sound than anything I’ve seen on any of the major traditional media networks.

With regard to what and when to share, I think you have to decide in your own mind who you and your brand are. You could be the crazy guy with the most dire, absolute worst case scenarios (who will be quickly forgotten once any perception of light is seen at the end of the tunnel). Personally, however, I think you are well positioned to become more established as a credible, research-based (if bearish) RE resource with staying power in any market. I’d choose the latter, and try and avoid excessively specific and unknowable predictions (you might not like my comments, but I think a lot of people without the inclination to research your whole perspective will hear a number like 4.2 yrs and quickly write you off. I’m sure network economists would write this number and formula off as simplistic, which frankly, it is). So maybe national, but trumpet the real issues which you have identified. I think there are a lot of people who need to hear the truth, and CNBC certainly isn’t providing it. Just my $.02, and only because you asked.

So keep up the research, and I at least will keep that salary of stars flowing.

Rob Dizzle

[HeadedHome]

I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of your assumptions, but with so many variables I think your forecasts are fairly reasonable, if one were to assume a linear progression of events. We would also have to assume there would be no significant influence from outside governmental policies and the like. It seems unlikely to me that the government will be able to resist the temptation to become involved in some meaningful (if not necessarily productive) way.

Personally I don’t see it playing out to quite the dire level as predicted (i.e., 4.2 yrs), but I think the whole of your research is certainly more sound than anything I’ve seen on any of the major traditional media networks.

With regard to what and when to share, I think you have to decide in your own mind who you and your brand are. You could be the crazy guy with the most dire, absolute worst case scenarios (who will be quickly forgotten once any perception of light is seen at the end of the tunnel). Personally, however, I think you are well positioned to become more established as a credible, research-based (if bearish) RE resource with staying power in any market. I’d choose the latter, and try and avoid excessively specific and unknowable predictions (you might not like my comments, but I think a lot of people without the inclination to research your whole perspective will hear a number like 4.2 yrs and quickly write you off. I’m sure network economists would write this number and formula off as simplistic, which frankly, it is). So maybe national, but trumpet the real issues which you have identified. I think there are a lot of people who need to hear the truth, and CNBC certainly isn’t providing it. Just my $.02, and only because you asked.

So keep up the research, and I at least will keep that salary of stars flowing.

Rob Dizzle

[capeman]

I’d say go for it and post on the larger sites. As long as you have sound data and let the data speak for your conclusions you don’t have to worry about those with their eyes wide shut. Sold to them as they say. You set yourself apart from the media by showing data and explaining it.

[capeman]

I’d say go for it and post on the larger sites. As long as you have sound data and let the data speak for your conclusions you don’t have to worry about those with their eyes wide shut. Sold to them as they say. You set yourself apart from the media by showing data and explaining it.

[capeman]

I’d say go for it and post on the larger sites. As long as you have sound data and let the data speak for your conclusions you don’t have to worry about those with their eyes wide shut. Sold to them as they say. You set yourself apart from the media by showing data and explaining it.

[capeman]

I’d say go for it and post on the larger sites. As long as you have sound data and let the data speak for your conclusions you don’t have to worry about those with their eyes wide shut. Sold to them as they say. You set yourself apart from the media by showing data and explaining it.

[capeman]

I’d say go for it and post on the larger sites. As long as you have sound data and let the data speak for your conclusions you don’t have to worry about those with their eyes wide shut. Sold to them as they say. You set yourself apart from the media by showing data and explaining it.

[ltokuda]

Mr. Mortgage, welcome to Piggington’s. Thank you for doing all this research and sharing the data with us. While the data does paint a very dire picture, I don’t think you should be using the phrase “4.25 year supply”. The problem is that “supply” has a specific definition. In your analysis, you are changing the definition of the term “supply” from its conventional definition to your own definition. That’s why there’s such a big difference between what the media reports and what you have calculated. So by telling people that there is a “4.25 year supply” of housing, you’re effectively misleading them. People will think you’re talking about the standard definition of “supply” when, in fact, you are not.

I realize that part of your analysis deals with questioning how “supply” should be calculated. Should we include shadow inventory, etc? However, suppose you did come up with an acceptable definition. What would that tell us? By itself, it wouldn’t tell us anything because we have nothing to reference it against. You can’t compare your calculated value of “supply” to the standard value since it would be like comparing apples and oranges. You would need a lot of historical data to calculate historical values of your “supply” in order to draw any real conclusion. If you were to do this and, essentially, create your own metric, its possible that some interesting patterns may emerge. I just wouldn’t call your new metric “supply”.

I think the data you present does say a lot about the market and does point to grim future in real estate. I think this data is extremely valuable for doing forecasts and analysis. In the short term, I would suggest focusing more on this.

If you decide to continue working on creating a new metric and it provides some interesting results, then you should definitely share that as well. I’m sure the piggies would be happy to review it. Right now, I don’t think its ready for mass distribution.

[ltokuda]

Mr. Mortgage, welcome to Piggington’s. Thank you for doing all this research and sharing the data with us. While the data does paint a very dire picture, I don’t think you should be using the phrase “4.25 year supply”. The problem is that “supply” has a specific definition. In your analysis, you are changing the definition of the term “supply” from its conventional definition to your own definition. That’s why there’s such a big difference between what the media reports and what you have calculated. So by telling people that there is a “4.25 year supply” of housing, you’re effectively misleading them. People will think you’re talking about the standard definition of “supply” when, in fact, you are not.

I realize that part of your analysis deals with questioning how “supply” should be calculated. Should we include shadow inventory, etc? However, suppose you did come up with an acceptable definition. What would that tell us? By itself, it wouldn’t tell us anything because we have nothing to reference it against. You can’t compare your calculated value of “supply” to the standard value since it would be like comparing apples and oranges. You would need a lot of historical data to calculate historical values of your “supply” in order to draw any real conclusion. If you were to do this and, essentially, create your own metric, its possible that some interesting patterns may emerge. I just wouldn’t call your new metric “supply”.

I think the data you present does say a lot about the market and does point to grim future in real estate. I think this data is extremely valuable for doing forecasts and analysis. In the short term, I would suggest focusing more on this.

If you decide to continue working on creating a new metric and it provides some interesting results, then you should definitely share that as well. I’m sure the piggies would be happy to review it. Right now, I don’t think its ready for mass distribution.

[ltokuda]

Mr. Mortgage, welcome to Piggington’s. Thank you for doing all this research and sharing the data with us. While the data does paint a very dire picture, I don’t think you should be using the phrase “4.25 year supply”. The problem is that “supply” has a specific definition. In your analysis, you are changing the definition of the term “supply” from its conventional definition to your own definition. That’s why there’s such a big difference between what the media reports and what you have calculated. So by telling people that there is a “4.25 year supply” of housing, you’re effectively misleading them. People will think you’re talking about the standard definition of “supply” when, in fact, you are not.

I realize that part of your analysis deals with questioning how “supply” should be calculated. Should we include shadow inventory, etc? However, suppose you did come up with an acceptable definition. What would that tell us? By itself, it wouldn’t tell us anything because we have nothing to reference it against. You can’t compare your calculated value of “supply” to the standard value since it would be like comparing apples and oranges. You would need a lot of historical data to calculate historical values of your “supply” in order to draw any real conclusion. If you were to do this and, essentially, create your own metric, its possible that some interesting patterns may emerge. I just wouldn’t call your new metric “supply”.

I think the data you present does say a lot about the market and does point to grim future in real estate. I think this data is extremely valuable for doing forecasts and analysis. In the short term, I would suggest focusing more on this.

If you decide to continue working on creating a new metric and it provides some interesting results, then you should definitely share that as well. I’m sure the piggies would be happy to review it. Right now, I don’t think its ready for mass distribution.

[ltokuda]

Mr. Mortgage, welcome to Piggington’s. Thank you for doing all this research and sharing the data with us. While the data does paint a very dire picture, I don’t think you should be using the phrase “4.25 year supply”. The problem is that “supply” has a specific definition. In your analysis, you are changing the definition of the term “supply” from its conventional definition to your own definition. That’s why there’s such a big difference between what the media reports and what you have calculated. So by telling people that there is a “4.25 year supply” of housing, you’re effectively misleading them. People will think you’re talking about the standard definition of “supply” when, in fact, you are not.

I realize that part of your analysis deals with questioning how “supply” should be calculated. Should we include shadow inventory, etc? However, suppose you did come up with an acceptable definition. What would that tell us? By itself, it wouldn’t tell us anything because we have nothing to reference it against. You can’t compare your calculated value of “supply” to the standard value since it would be like comparing apples and oranges. You would need a lot of historical data to calculate historical values of your “supply” in order to draw any real conclusion. If you were to do this and, essentially, create your own metric, its possible that some interesting patterns may emerge. I just wouldn’t call your new metric “supply”.

I think the data you present does say a lot about the market and does point to grim future in real estate. I think this data is extremely valuable for doing forecasts and analysis. In the short term, I would suggest focusing more on this.

If you decide to continue working on creating a new metric and it provides some interesting results, then you should definitely share that as well. I’m sure the piggies would be happy to review it. Right now, I don’t think its ready for mass distribution.

[Author]

Posts