June 8, 2006 at 6:31 PM #6695
I’m on the e-mail notification list for the UCLA Anderson Forecast, and was invited to the next conference.
Below is the invitation and my reply.
Dear Friends and Associates,
The UCLA Anderson Forecast would like to invite you to join us for our Fourth Annual Economic Forecast and Real Estate conference.
JUNE 2006 ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
What’s Around the Bend for California Real Estate?
June 21, 2006 7:00am-11:30am
(Program begins at 8:00am)
Ackerman Grand Ballroom, UCLA Campus
Registration (Includes a copy of the Forecast): visit http://www.uclaforecast.com
VIP Table of Eight (Preferred seating with placard): $1500
– Buy, sell or wait? What’s the right strategy?
– Homes, jobs and mortgage-backed securities: How bad might it get?
– How much default and delinquency risk do you own, without realizing it?
– What about commercial real estate? Does it face the same risks as residential?
Bruce Karatz, Chairman and CEO, KB Home
Richard Ziman, Chairman, American Value Partners
Will offer their insights on the direction the California real estate market is headed.
National, State & Regional Outlook:
Edward Leamer, Director, UCLA Anderson Forecast
David Shulman, Former Chief Equity Strategist, Salomon Brothers and Former Head REIT Analyst, Lehman Brothers
Ryan Ratcliff, Economist, UCLA Anderson Forecast
Financial Fallout from a Slowing Real Estate Market:
Doug McEachern, National Director, Real Estate AERS Services, Deloitte & Touche, LLP (Moderator)
Chris Cagan, Director of Research and Analytics, First American Real Estate Solutions
Mike McCook, Former Senior Investment Officer-Real Estate, CalPERS
Bruce Harting, Mortgage Finance Analyst, Lehman Brothers
John M. Tipton, Esq., Partner, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP Attorneys at
I was disappointed in the accuracy of the last forecast, so I won’t be attending any more.
Specifically, your housing outlook relies on completely ignoring exotic financing: 100% loans, no doc, stated income, IO, ARMs, negative amortization. The forecast didn’t mention that inventory is higher than the 1990’s peak, and foreclosures are at an all time high.
It was a narrow view to state that housing prices can only decline in a recession. Housing prices decline when supply is much greater than demand, which usually happens when owners cannot make their mortgage. Whether that occurs due to massive job losses or massive ARMs resetting to levels which cannot fit into a budget, doesn’t matter.
You see, the resetting of ARMs will have the same effect as job losses: millions of homeowners who cannot make their mortgage payment and are forced into foreclosure.
Another point: your forecast depends on $50 oil. You thought oil could go down because NLG went down. Those markets don’t even move in the same way. NLG went down in price because we had a mild winter and supplies built up. This cannot happen with gas. We have a limited supply, and rising global demand. It’s more likely to have $70 oil than $50 oil.
I find that the forecast is inaccurate and outdated, and we are only one month from my last attendance.
So, until you include the exotic financing, already sky-high inventory, record foreclosures, and high oil prices in your forecast , it really is not useful to read any more of them.
Schahrzad BerklandJune 8, 2006 at 10:36 PM #26489Jim BrubakerParticipant
Do they take Monopoly Money? $350 is a tad bit on the high side of never.June 9, 2006 at 5:13 AM #26495
I found a post from sdrealtor, writing that the UCLA Anderson group missed the 1990’s price bust too. They said prices couldn’t go down.
Submitted by sdrealtor on April 3, 2006 – 9:42pm.
If most people in SD sold who would buy their houses?As for the minds at Anderson/UCLA my favorite story comes from a colleague of mine. Those brilliant minds made a presentation to his company 2 months before the last crash in the early 1990’s and said that CA was recession proof and that real estate never went down. Unfortunately, he listened to them and lost everything he had. He’s still trying to recover.June 9, 2006 at 8:38 AM #26507privatebankerParticipant
Another lipstick on the pig ceremony.June 9, 2006 at 10:50 AM #26528
What does that mean? Lipstick on a pig? Sorry to be so clueless.June 9, 2006 at 12:55 PM #26533daveljParticipant
“Foreclosures are at an all-time high.”
Are you sure that’s correct? My understanding is that the foreclosure rate was many multiples of the current rate back in 1990-1994 here in California.June 9, 2006 at 3:03 PM #26539superfly19Participant
Lipstick on a pig… Dressing the pig?
I’ve heard these terms used to describe trying to make something look better to sell it.
Like painting over the leak stains on your ceiling instead of fixing the roof, etc…June 11, 2006 at 10:09 AM #26615daveljParticipant
I ask again…
“Foreclosures are at an all-time high.”
Are you sure that’s correct? My understanding is that the foreclosure rate was many multiples of the current rate back in 1990-1994 here in California.June 11, 2006 at 1:50 PM #26631AnonymousGuest
I agree davelj. Foreclosures are not at an all time high. I think many people have forgotten that foreclosures are a normal part of the housing market. Since the market here in San Diego has been so hot the past few years, foreclosures have been a rarity. Perhaps the “all time high” was referring to just the past couple of years?June 11, 2006 at 6:10 PM #26634
Yes, I was referring to the past few years. Every time a foreclosure report comes out, we set a new record for this housing cycle.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.