A home is a lousy investment (wsj)

[pemeliza]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375323652341888.html

Interesting read but the chart in the article makes it look like the Dow is the ultimate super bubble dwarfing the RE bubble. Does this guy really expect us to believe that the DOW is going to have such a meteoric rise over the next 30 years while housing just putters along at 3.6% a year? I would have had more respect for the author if he just would have said something like:

“We are in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. Place your bets and good luck.”

[carlsbadworker]

Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.

[carlsbadworker]

Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.

[carlsbadworker]

Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.

[carlsbadworker]

Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.

[carlsbadworker]

Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=carlsbadworker]Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.[/quote]

TG, don’t you think you’re being a little picky over the whole data thing? C’mon, how was the reporter supposed to know that someone was actually reading the article? And using it to get information?

Besides, you shouldn’t be too hard on the WSJ this week. They’re all depressed over the Rupert Murdoch/ NewsCorp scandal unfolding in England. After all, where are they going to get material for their stories now that the FBI is checking NewsCorp’s stateside media outlets for cellphone hacking activities.

In all seriousness, TG, I’ve always eyed the Journal with a modicum of respect. At least until a couple months ago, when I made the tactical error of reading the “comments” section on an article about the commodities market. It gave me a clear idea of just how much the content had been changed at the WSJ……and not for the better, I’m afraid. I was genuinely disillusioned and disappointed.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=carlsbadworker]Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.[/quote]

TG, don’t you think you’re being a little picky over the whole data thing? C’mon, how was the reporter supposed to know that someone was actually reading the article? And using it to get information?

Besides, you shouldn’t be too hard on the WSJ this week. They’re all depressed over the Rupert Murdoch/ NewsCorp scandal unfolding in England. After all, where are they going to get material for their stories now that the FBI is checking NewsCorp’s stateside media outlets for cellphone hacking activities.

In all seriousness, TG, I’ve always eyed the Journal with a modicum of respect. At least until a couple months ago, when I made the tactical error of reading the “comments” section on an article about the commodities market. It gave me a clear idea of just how much the content had been changed at the WSJ……and not for the better, I’m afraid. I was genuinely disillusioned and disappointed.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=carlsbadworker]Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.[/quote]

TG, don’t you think you’re being a little picky over the whole data thing? C’mon, how was the reporter supposed to know that someone was actually reading the article? And using it to get information?

Besides, you shouldn’t be too hard on the WSJ this week. They’re all depressed over the Rupert Murdoch/ NewsCorp scandal unfolding in England. After all, where are they going to get material for their stories now that the FBI is checking NewsCorp’s stateside media outlets for cellphone hacking activities.

In all seriousness, TG, I’ve always eyed the Journal with a modicum of respect. At least until a couple months ago, when I made the tactical error of reading the “comments” section on an article about the commodities market. It gave me a clear idea of just how much the content had been changed at the WSJ……and not for the better, I’m afraid. I was genuinely disillusioned and disappointed.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=carlsbadworker]Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.[/quote]

TG, don’t you think you’re being a little picky over the whole data thing? C’mon, how was the reporter supposed to know that someone was actually reading the article? And using it to get information?

Besides, you shouldn’t be too hard on the WSJ this week. They’re all depressed over the Rupert Murdoch/ NewsCorp scandal unfolding in England. After all, where are they going to get material for their stories now that the FBI is checking NewsCorp’s stateside media outlets for cellphone hacking activities.

In all seriousness, TG, I’ve always eyed the Journal with a modicum of respect. At least until a couple months ago, when I made the tactical error of reading the “comments” section on an article about the commodities market. It gave me a clear idea of just how much the content had been changed at the WSJ……and not for the better, I’m afraid. I was genuinely disillusioned and disappointed.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=carlsbadworker]Well, it is a lousy article. But I guess it is better than an article with only opinion but no data. He actually tries to bring data to illustrate his points. Unfortunately he used a very small subset of data just to back his points.

I am getting tired of people using last century’s US equity return to predict the next century. After all, from global equity market’s point of view, US was just a special case last century.

We are always in uncharted territory. Planning for your retirement 30 years from now is a crap shoot at best. It is important to hedge your bets.[/quote]

TG, don’t you think you’re being a little picky over the whole data thing? C’mon, how was the reporter supposed to know that someone was actually reading the article? And using it to get information?

Besides, you shouldn’t be too hard on the WSJ this week. They’re all depressed over the Rupert Murdoch/ NewsCorp scandal unfolding in England. After all, where are they going to get material for their stories now that the FBI is checking NewsCorp’s stateside media outlets for cellphone hacking activities.

In all seriousness, TG, I’ve always eyed the Journal with a modicum of respect. At least until a couple months ago, when I made the tactical error of reading the “comments” section on an article about the commodities market. It gave me a clear idea of just how much the content had been changed at the WSJ……and not for the better, I’m afraid. I was genuinely disillusioned and disappointed.

[Rich Toscano]

Like a typical MSM article, it doesn’t even mention valuations… by coincidence, at the start of his analysis period, US stocks were dirt cheap and homes were overvalued. So of course stocks did better. I’m not even denying the premise of the article… just saying that the analysis is sloppy because it leaves out the crucially important factor of starting valuation.

[Rich Toscano]

Like a typical MSM article, it doesn’t even mention valuations… by coincidence, at the start of his analysis period, US stocks were dirt cheap and homes were overvalued. So of course stocks did better. I’m not even denying the premise of the article… just saying that the analysis is sloppy because it leaves out the crucially important factor of starting valuation.

[Rich Toscano]

Like a typical MSM article, it doesn’t even mention valuations… by coincidence, at the start of his analysis period, US stocks were dirt cheap and homes were overvalued. So of course stocks did better. I’m not even denying the premise of the article… just saying that the analysis is sloppy because it leaves out the crucially important factor of starting valuation.

[Rich Toscano]

Like a typical MSM article, it doesn’t even mention valuations… by coincidence, at the start of his analysis period, US stocks were dirt cheap and homes were overvalued. So of course stocks did better. I’m not even denying the premise of the article… just saying that the analysis is sloppy because it leaves out the crucially important factor of starting valuation.

[Author]

Posts