Mortgage broker predicts further collapse in housing

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

[quote=DataAgent]This chart says San Diego is undervalued by 17%:
http://money.cnn.com/real_estate/storysupplement/overvalued_cities/

(you need to click the ‘undervalued’ tab)[/quote]

Hmm don’t know about SD being undervalued so much,

But I would say TV is still undervalued at this point being about an hour commute to most of SD and about the same to south OC.

Being from L.A. an hour commute looks good so my opinion may not matter as much but I am happy.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the analysis in the referenced article is that the underlying trend is assumed to be linear rather than exponential. In other words, the article and graph assume that the stable trend has home prices appreciating by a constant dollar amount per year rather by a constant percentage per year.

This leads to all sorts of nonsense – For example, if you extend the trend line off the left end of the graph it goes to 0 somewhere in the late 60s, and we all know that didn’t really happen. It also causes the estimate of current “trend” prices to be low by 15-20% (judging by eyeball).

Inflation in particular does in fact follow an exponential trend, and inflation has a huge underlying impact on home prices.

I don’t think that housing will be a good investment any time soon (people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them) but I also don’t think it’s anywhere near as dire as this “analysis” suggests.

Perhaps Arraya should do some of that book learning they criticize so thoroughly. In particular it seems that they would benefit by refreshing their understanding of basic math.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the analysis in the referenced article is that the underlying trend is assumed to be linear rather than exponential. In other words, the article and graph assume that the stable trend has home prices appreciating by a constant dollar amount per year rather by a constant percentage per year.

This leads to all sorts of nonsense – For example, if you extend the trend line off the left end of the graph it goes to 0 somewhere in the late 60s, and we all know that didn’t really happen. It also causes the estimate of current “trend” prices to be low by 15-20% (judging by eyeball).

Inflation in particular does in fact follow an exponential trend, and inflation has a huge underlying impact on home prices.

I don’t think that housing will be a good investment any time soon (people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them) but I also don’t think it’s anywhere near as dire as this “analysis” suggests.

Perhaps Arraya should do some of that book learning they criticize so thoroughly. In particular it seems that they would benefit by refreshing their understanding of basic math.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the analysis in the referenced article is that the underlying trend is assumed to be linear rather than exponential. In other words, the article and graph assume that the stable trend has home prices appreciating by a constant dollar amount per year rather by a constant percentage per year.

This leads to all sorts of nonsense – For example, if you extend the trend line off the left end of the graph it goes to 0 somewhere in the late 60s, and we all know that didn’t really happen. It also causes the estimate of current “trend” prices to be low by 15-20% (judging by eyeball).

Inflation in particular does in fact follow an exponential trend, and inflation has a huge underlying impact on home prices.

I don’t think that housing will be a good investment any time soon (people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them) but I also don’t think it’s anywhere near as dire as this “analysis” suggests.

Perhaps Arraya should do some of that book learning they criticize so thoroughly. In particular it seems that they would benefit by refreshing their understanding of basic math.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the analysis in the referenced article is that the underlying trend is assumed to be linear rather than exponential. In other words, the article and graph assume that the stable trend has home prices appreciating by a constant dollar amount per year rather by a constant percentage per year.

This leads to all sorts of nonsense – For example, if you extend the trend line off the left end of the graph it goes to 0 somewhere in the late 60s, and we all know that didn’t really happen. It also causes the estimate of current “trend” prices to be low by 15-20% (judging by eyeball).

Inflation in particular does in fact follow an exponential trend, and inflation has a huge underlying impact on home prices.

I don’t think that housing will be a good investment any time soon (people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them) but I also don’t think it’s anywhere near as dire as this “analysis” suggests.

Perhaps Arraya should do some of that book learning they criticize so thoroughly. In particular it seems that they would benefit by refreshing their understanding of basic math.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the analysis in the referenced article is that the underlying trend is assumed to be linear rather than exponential. In other words, the article and graph assume that the stable trend has home prices appreciating by a constant dollar amount per year rather by a constant percentage per year.

This leads to all sorts of nonsense – For example, if you extend the trend line off the left end of the graph it goes to 0 somewhere in the late 60s, and we all know that didn’t really happen. It also causes the estimate of current “trend” prices to be low by 15-20% (judging by eyeball).

Inflation in particular does in fact follow an exponential trend, and inflation has a huge underlying impact on home prices.

I don’t think that housing will be a good investment any time soon (people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them) but I also don’t think it’s anywhere near as dire as this “analysis” suggests.

Perhaps Arraya should do some of that book learning they criticize so thoroughly. In particular it seems that they would benefit by refreshing their understanding of basic math.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=Arraya]Only an academic bureaucrat…[/quote]

Dude, you better define that. Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me!

[quote=Arraya]Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner prove that book learning makes you dumb…[/quote]

Come on Arraya, you are an old timer here, you can do better than that!

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=Arraya]Only an academic bureaucrat…[/quote]

Dude, you better define that. Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me!

[quote=Arraya]Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner prove that book learning makes you dumb…[/quote]

Come on Arraya, you are an old timer here, you can do better than that!

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=Arraya]Only an academic bureaucrat…[/quote]

Dude, you better define that. Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me!

[quote=Arraya]Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner prove that book learning makes you dumb…[/quote]

Come on Arraya, you are an old timer here, you can do better than that!

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=Arraya]Only an academic bureaucrat…[/quote]

Dude, you better define that. Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me!

[quote=Arraya]Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner prove that book learning makes you dumb…[/quote]

Come on Arraya, you are an old timer here, you can do better than that!

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=Arraya]Only an academic bureaucrat…[/quote]

Dude, you better define that. Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me!

[quote=Arraya]Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner prove that book learning makes you dumb…[/quote]

Come on Arraya, you are an old timer here, you can do better than that!

[4plexowner]

“people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them”

your mild statement is true for mild situations

after a bubble bursts, history says that people will stay away from the deflated asset class FOR A FULL GENERATION

[4plexowner]

“people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them”

your mild statement is true for mild situations

after a bubble bursts, history says that people will stay away from the deflated asset class FOR A FULL GENERATION

[4plexowner]

“people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them”

your mild statement is true for mild situations

after a bubble bursts, history says that people will stay away from the deflated asset class FOR A FULL GENERATION

[4plexowner]

“people tend to shy away from that which has most recently burned them”

your mild statement is true for mild situations

after a bubble bursts, history says that people will stay away from the deflated asset class FOR A FULL GENERATION

[Author]

Posts