HOUSING: Feds suspend anti-flipping rule

[CA renter]

For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. Additionally, it’s very common to see flippers selling to other flippers/speculators. You can have a “false” supply/demand ratio in the market for a long, long time. I don’t know how else to explain it.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?[/quote]

I never said that flipping was the **root** of the problems, just that it was a big part of the problem. I think the root of the problem is easy credit, but when you add the speculative element, it’s like pouring fuel on a fire.

Prices rose because of easy money, AND prices rose even more because of speculation. You cannot separate the two.

Yes, loose lending — without the speculative element — would have made prices rise because of the additional demand created by the easy/cheap money, but they would not have risen as high as they did without the speculation (even by “organic” buyers who stretched because they believed prices always go up, and that they could always “refi” or sell for a profit when they could no longer afford their payments). It does not take away from the fact that the speculation ALSO created ADDITIONAL “false” demand that **in conjunction with** the easy money, created the perfect environment for a massive asset bubble.

Asset bubbles are almost always a result of high leverage/easy money **AND** speculation. Again, they go together because they reinforce each other.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?[/quote]

I never said that flipping was the **root** of the problems, just that it was a big part of the problem. I think the root of the problem is easy credit, but when you add the speculative element, it’s like pouring fuel on a fire.

Prices rose because of easy money, AND prices rose even more because of speculation. You cannot separate the two.

Yes, loose lending — without the speculative element — would have made prices rise because of the additional demand created by the easy/cheap money, but they would not have risen as high as they did without the speculation (even by “organic” buyers who stretched because they believed prices always go up, and that they could always “refi” or sell for a profit when they could no longer afford their payments). It does not take away from the fact that the speculation ALSO created ADDITIONAL “false” demand that **in conjunction with** the easy money, created the perfect environment for a massive asset bubble.

Asset bubbles are almost always a result of high leverage/easy money **AND** speculation. Again, they go together because they reinforce each other.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?[/quote]

I never said that flipping was the **root** of the problems, just that it was a big part of the problem. I think the root of the problem is easy credit, but when you add the speculative element, it’s like pouring fuel on a fire.

Prices rose because of easy money, AND prices rose even more because of speculation. You cannot separate the two.

Yes, loose lending — without the speculative element — would have made prices rise because of the additional demand created by the easy/cheap money, but they would not have risen as high as they did without the speculation (even by “organic” buyers who stretched because they believed prices always go up, and that they could always “refi” or sell for a profit when they could no longer afford their payments). It does not take away from the fact that the speculation ALSO created ADDITIONAL “false” demand that **in conjunction with** the easy money, created the perfect environment for a massive asset bubble.

Asset bubbles are almost always a result of high leverage/easy money **AND** speculation. Again, they go together because they reinforce each other.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?[/quote]

I never said that flipping was the **root** of the problems, just that it was a big part of the problem. I think the root of the problem is easy credit, but when you add the speculative element, it’s like pouring fuel on a fire.

Prices rose because of easy money, AND prices rose even more because of speculation. You cannot separate the two.

Yes, loose lending — without the speculative element — would have made prices rise because of the additional demand created by the easy/cheap money, but they would not have risen as high as they did without the speculation (even by “organic” buyers who stretched because they believed prices always go up, and that they could always “refi” or sell for a profit when they could no longer afford their payments). It does not take away from the fact that the speculation ALSO created ADDITIONAL “false” demand that **in conjunction with** the easy money, created the perfect environment for a massive asset bubble.

Asset bubbles are almost always a result of high leverage/easy money **AND** speculation. Again, they go together because they reinforce each other.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]For some reason, it seems I’m not able to communicate what I’m trying to communicate.

Once more, flippers/speculators do not always put their flips/investments on the market immediately after buying them (zero days). If there were no time lags, you’d have a point. You’re neglecting the time lags (marketing, fixing up, escrow, intentionally holding things off the market if the market slows, etc.). Three months can make a big difference in the housing market, and it influences the behavior of all other buyers.

Housing is not a liquid market, and if the number of new flippers/speculators overwhelms the new supply, they become the market — temporarily (weeks, months, years) pushing prices up until they collectively release the inventory onto the market.

If one flipper is selling while two more are buying, and this activity continues over a period of time, speculators are absolutely going to affect the supply/demand ratios and greatly affect pricing. I don’t know how else to explain it.[/quote]
I agree with your point that when you have an increase in flippers, you have increase demand and reduce supply. But that does not go on forever. That’s also not what I’m trying to point out to you. Once again, the point I’m trying to make is, flipper is not the ROOT of the problem. Loose lending is. Do you disagree with that?

It all start from:
[quote=CA renter]
Though some of us think flipping is a big part of the problem, it doesn’t mean we’re not informed.[/quote]

Let me put your question back on you. If there’s no flipper in the last 10 years, do you think the bubble wouldn’t have happened even if we had loose lending?[/quote]

I never said that flipping was the **root** of the problems, just that it was a big part of the problem. I think the root of the problem is easy credit, but when you add the speculative element, it’s like pouring fuel on a fire.

Prices rose because of easy money, AND prices rose even more because of speculation. You cannot separate the two.

Yes, loose lending — without the speculative element — would have made prices rise because of the additional demand created by the easy/cheap money, but they would not have risen as high as they did without the speculation (even by “organic” buyers who stretched because they believed prices always go up, and that they could always “refi” or sell for a profit when they could no longer afford their payments). It does not take away from the fact that the speculation ALSO created ADDITIONAL “false” demand that **in conjunction with** the easy money, created the perfect environment for a massive asset bubble.

Asset bubbles are almost always a result of high leverage/easy money **AND** speculation. Again, they go together because they reinforce each other.

[an]

Yes, I agree speculation increase the magnitude of the bubble. I’m not denying that. I’m just saying it’s not the “big part” of the problem. If it’s a big part, then removing the “big part” of the problem will reduce the problem considerably. Do you think it would? I don’t. However, If you remove the loose lending, you’ll reduce the problem considerably. As we see between 2006-2009. Now, looser lending is back and guess what, problem is occurring again.

Once again, they happen together but loose lending comes first. People don’t speculate until there’s loose lending. A cause B to occur but B doesn’t cause A to occur.

[an]

Yes, I agree speculation increase the magnitude of the bubble. I’m not denying that. I’m just saying it’s not the “big part” of the problem. If it’s a big part, then removing the “big part” of the problem will reduce the problem considerably. Do you think it would? I don’t. However, If you remove the loose lending, you’ll reduce the problem considerably. As we see between 2006-2009. Now, looser lending is back and guess what, problem is occurring again.

Once again, they happen together but loose lending comes first. People don’t speculate until there’s loose lending. A cause B to occur but B doesn’t cause A to occur.

[an]

Yes, I agree speculation increase the magnitude of the bubble. I’m not denying that. I’m just saying it’s not the “big part” of the problem. If it’s a big part, then removing the “big part” of the problem will reduce the problem considerably. Do you think it would? I don’t. However, If you remove the loose lending, you’ll reduce the problem considerably. As we see between 2006-2009. Now, looser lending is back and guess what, problem is occurring again.

Once again, they happen together but loose lending comes first. People don’t speculate until there’s loose lending. A cause B to occur but B doesn’t cause A to occur.

[an]

Yes, I agree speculation increase the magnitude of the bubble. I’m not denying that. I’m just saying it’s not the “big part” of the problem. If it’s a big part, then removing the “big part” of the problem will reduce the problem considerably. Do you think it would? I don’t. However, If you remove the loose lending, you’ll reduce the problem considerably. As we see between 2006-2009. Now, looser lending is back and guess what, problem is occurring again.

Once again, they happen together but loose lending comes first. People don’t speculate until there’s loose lending. A cause B to occur but B doesn’t cause A to occur.

[Author]

Posts