anyone even slightley bullish about RE market?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=asianautica]
San Diego, I think, is a long way from <50%*rent, if it ever get there. However, places like Fresno is already there.[/quote]

I seriously doubt we will see that kind of figure for single family homes in any reasonable middle class neighborhood in San Diego. It has not happened at any time in the past 40 years. For apartment buildings and condos in marginal areas I would expect to see these kinds of situations develop. Also might happen in the barrio for SFRs.

[sdduuuude]

I think that “one day” bit is the key to life right now. Shiff thinks soon. Mish says later.

We have massive debt defaults that Japan did not and in Japan, borrowed money was invested elsewhere. Now, few are borrowing at all to invest anywhere. Same effect, no ? The Fed is practically begging people to borrow and spend and they aren’t doing it.

I’m thinking it’ll take 3 years or so but wouldn’t be terribly surprised if it takes 5.

When do you think that might happen, CBW ?

[sdduuuude]

I think that “one day” bit is the key to life right now. Shiff thinks soon. Mish says later.

We have massive debt defaults that Japan did not and in Japan, borrowed money was invested elsewhere. Now, few are borrowing at all to invest anywhere. Same effect, no ? The Fed is practically begging people to borrow and spend and they aren’t doing it.

I’m thinking it’ll take 3 years or so but wouldn’t be terribly surprised if it takes 5.

When do you think that might happen, CBW ?

[sdduuuude]

I think that “one day” bit is the key to life right now. Shiff thinks soon. Mish says later.

We have massive debt defaults that Japan did not and in Japan, borrowed money was invested elsewhere. Now, few are borrowing at all to invest anywhere. Same effect, no ? The Fed is practically begging people to borrow and spend and they aren’t doing it.

I’m thinking it’ll take 3 years or so but wouldn’t be terribly surprised if it takes 5.

When do you think that might happen, CBW ?

[sdduuuude]

I think that “one day” bit is the key to life right now. Shiff thinks soon. Mish says later.

We have massive debt defaults that Japan did not and in Japan, borrowed money was invested elsewhere. Now, few are borrowing at all to invest anywhere. Same effect, no ? The Fed is practically begging people to borrow and spend and they aren’t doing it.

I’m thinking it’ll take 3 years or so but wouldn’t be terribly surprised if it takes 5.

When do you think that might happen, CBW ?

[sdduuuude]

I think that “one day” bit is the key to life right now. Shiff thinks soon. Mish says later.

We have massive debt defaults that Japan did not and in Japan, borrowed money was invested elsewhere. Now, few are borrowing at all to invest anywhere. Same effect, no ? The Fed is practically begging people to borrow and spend and they aren’t doing it.

I’m thinking it’ll take 3 years or so but wouldn’t be terribly surprised if it takes 5.

When do you think that might happen, CBW ?

[patientrenter]

I’ll piggyback on this thread to ask a question I’ve been mulling for a while:

You’ve all seen the Shiller charts that show this real estate bubble was the biggest in recorded human history. That’s right, what happened to real estate prices in just the last 10 years – in San Diego, in California, in the USA, in much of the rest of the world – was bigger than anything ever recorded.

Given that, do you think that the traditional measures of the bottom of the cycle – sales, price/income etc – will be average, or much different from the average bottom of the cycle? (As one reference point, the bottom of the last cycle in So Cal was 1996, not 2001….) If you think it’s going to be different, how different?

[patientrenter]

I’ll piggyback on this thread to ask a question I’ve been mulling for a while:

You’ve all seen the Shiller charts that show this real estate bubble was the biggest in recorded human history. That’s right, what happened to real estate prices in just the last 10 years – in San Diego, in California, in the USA, in much of the rest of the world – was bigger than anything ever recorded.

Given that, do you think that the traditional measures of the bottom of the cycle – sales, price/income etc – will be average, or much different from the average bottom of the cycle? (As one reference point, the bottom of the last cycle in So Cal was 1996, not 2001….) If you think it’s going to be different, how different?

[patientrenter]

I’ll piggyback on this thread to ask a question I’ve been mulling for a while:

You’ve all seen the Shiller charts that show this real estate bubble was the biggest in recorded human history. That’s right, what happened to real estate prices in just the last 10 years – in San Diego, in California, in the USA, in much of the rest of the world – was bigger than anything ever recorded.

Given that, do you think that the traditional measures of the bottom of the cycle – sales, price/income etc – will be average, or much different from the average bottom of the cycle? (As one reference point, the bottom of the last cycle in So Cal was 1996, not 2001….) If you think it’s going to be different, how different?

[patientrenter]

I’ll piggyback on this thread to ask a question I’ve been mulling for a while:

You’ve all seen the Shiller charts that show this real estate bubble was the biggest in recorded human history. That’s right, what happened to real estate prices in just the last 10 years – in San Diego, in California, in the USA, in much of the rest of the world – was bigger than anything ever recorded.

Given that, do you think that the traditional measures of the bottom of the cycle – sales, price/income etc – will be average, or much different from the average bottom of the cycle? (As one reference point, the bottom of the last cycle in So Cal was 1996, not 2001….) If you think it’s going to be different, how different?

[patientrenter]

I’ll piggyback on this thread to ask a question I’ve been mulling for a while:

You’ve all seen the Shiller charts that show this real estate bubble was the biggest in recorded human history. That’s right, what happened to real estate prices in just the last 10 years – in San Diego, in California, in the USA, in much of the rest of the world – was bigger than anything ever recorded.

Given that, do you think that the traditional measures of the bottom of the cycle – sales, price/income etc – will be average, or much different from the average bottom of the cycle? (As one reference point, the bottom of the last cycle in So Cal was 1996, not 2001….) If you think it’s going to be different, how different?

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
The reason that Japan had 0% rates but it still has deflation is because the famous phenomenon known as “carry-trade”. The rest of the world’s economy was booming at that time. So naturally, people took money from Japan central bank and invested it elsewhere. So the printing press does not work as a tool to fight deflation over there.
[/quote]

Actually, Japan’s low rates didn’t translate to an increase in the money supply. And they didn’t start quantitative easing (central banker euphemism for money printing) until 2001 — ie a decade after the bust started. So as far as the “printing press” goes, Bernanke and crew have already done what it took Japan over a decade to do.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
The reason that Japan had 0% rates but it still has deflation is because the famous phenomenon known as “carry-trade”. The rest of the world’s economy was booming at that time. So naturally, people took money from Japan central bank and invested it elsewhere. So the printing press does not work as a tool to fight deflation over there.
[/quote]

Actually, Japan’s low rates didn’t translate to an increase in the money supply. And they didn’t start quantitative easing (central banker euphemism for money printing) until 2001 — ie a decade after the bust started. So as far as the “printing press” goes, Bernanke and crew have already done what it took Japan over a decade to do.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
The reason that Japan had 0% rates but it still has deflation is because the famous phenomenon known as “carry-trade”. The rest of the world’s economy was booming at that time. So naturally, people took money from Japan central bank and invested it elsewhere. So the printing press does not work as a tool to fight deflation over there.
[/quote]

Actually, Japan’s low rates didn’t translate to an increase in the money supply. And they didn’t start quantitative easing (central banker euphemism for money printing) until 2001 — ie a decade after the bust started. So as far as the “printing press” goes, Bernanke and crew have already done what it took Japan over a decade to do.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
The reason that Japan had 0% rates but it still has deflation is because the famous phenomenon known as “carry-trade”. The rest of the world’s economy was booming at that time. So naturally, people took money from Japan central bank and invested it elsewhere. So the printing press does not work as a tool to fight deflation over there.
[/quote]

Actually, Japan’s low rates didn’t translate to an increase in the money supply. And they didn’t start quantitative easing (central banker euphemism for money printing) until 2001 — ie a decade after the bust started. So as far as the “printing press” goes, Bernanke and crew have already done what it took Japan over a decade to do.

Rich

[Author]

Posts