Rich’s media appearances

[powayseller]

I missed the radio interview, and can’t catch the show tonight either, since I’m out of town. Are either of these taped?

[brooke]

Rich is going to try to get recordings of both up on the site.

– brooke

[sdrealtor]

Did anyone see it? Did Rich steamroll over this guy or get steamrollered himself?

[ucodegen]

In my opinion, he did a lot better this time. He was able to point out some major issues. His opponent this time was also better, and seemed to have a better handle on data (though possibly flawed or mis-interpreted data). His opponent did try to talk over him but the interviewer for Take 5 managed to stop him. I would have some recommendations though, mostly to aleviate the deer-in-headlights syndrome that can occur.

1) Before the interview, go through the potential arguments the pro-soft-landing, pro-continued-increase groups may bring up (bulleted list). Write down counter args and support info for those args. It may help to bring this to interview.

2) Bring pad and paper. It will be rude to interrupt and correct the opposing view when they are speaking, but write down a one to three word description of what point they are making. On your turn to reply, you can use these notes to directly address the points they have made. (If they interrupt while you are speaking you can counter that they are being rude and they will have their time to counter as you are doing now). I have noticed that the pro-RE group seems to try to talk over the other person.

One of the points that was brought up and not dealt with is the internal growth in population within San Diego. The truth is that the ‘native’ growth is very slow (the old 2.4 kids formula). With more people in the technical fields delaying when they have children and reducing the number of children they have, the population growth factor has tipped to being slightly negative. The offsetting amount has been immigration (legal and illegal). This is part of what has made the whole illegal immigration thing such a hot topic. It allows corporations to pay a lower wage (raises supply of labor), and increases housing costs (increases demand for housing) = profits for builders/RE agents/ etc in the RE business. Most new immigrants with little education also have many children, increasing the growth factor.

Since I mentioned the 2.4 child rate per family, lets take a look at that. For estimates sake, we can state that all children are born simultaneously at about 30 years of age on the parents (those with little education are earlier, more education are later). Since the parents eventually die, the increase is 40% over 30 years, or a 1.12% per year rate of increase (takes time for the children to also have children of their own.. another 30 years and 2 of the children replace the parents in the population with the 0.4 fractional child being the growth). The rate of increase in the cost of housing should be roughly rate of inflation + percent population growth.

[sdrealtor]

Right or wrong about their arguments, that sounds like a nice way of saying Rich was the one under the steamroller.

[PerryChase]

A bear always has to be very circumspect and can never appear too sure of himself when predicting a downturn lest he be labeled irresponsible, a naysayer, and siding with the ennemy. You have to say that you hope things don;t go south but, according to your analysis, you don’t see how the current situation can be sustained. That’s bear speak.

Bulls, on the other hand, are always free to predict that the sky’s the limit.

In life, there’s rarely a downside to being a bull, but bears will get attacked from every corner. I admire contrarians for this reason.

powayseller, is the only one who puts it bluntly. That’s why I love her. 🙂

[Carlsbadliving]

I think that Rich did a great job. Both sides got in some good points but I think that Rich came off a little more sure of himself and his data.

I did enjoy that brief argument about supply and demand. Lee Sterling talked about the Sandag reports that say that an additional 100,000 units are needed and that the population continues to grow. Rich indicated that population has actually been declining. Lee interupted with the notion that Rich wasn’t counting natural increase (births). Rich replied by saying that babies don’t buy houses and then Lee said “but, couples that have babies buy houses.” Well, wouldn’t the couple have already been counted in the population figures and already living here.

Lee seemed to interupt with off-the-wall comments like this a few times. Rich seemed much more able to back up his side with data and with definitions.

It also sounded like they were going to have Rich back on again to discuss exotic loans because they didn’t have time to talk about that.

[ucodegen]

Right or wrong about their arguments, that sounds like a nice way of saying Rich was the one under the steamroller.

Actually, I would say it was more of a tie from a ‘debating’ standpoint. The previous Take 5 interview was more of a steamroller job (being steamrollered). Experience always helps, and Rich is new at this.

The point about internal population growth was the only one that Rich did not directly address. Saying that babies do not buy houses, does not address the issue that eventually they do. What is really important is the internal population growth rate, not whether there is a ‘baby’ involved. There will need to be at least two babies to eventually offset the death of the parents in the population.

[sdrealtor]

Thanks I didnt see it. BTW, I did my job with the babies:)

[brooke]

Here are the links to of both of the appearances on youtube:

Part 1

Part 2

[lendingbubblecontinues]

Hi Brooke,

I couldn’t get the links to work. Is it me?

[Carlsbadliving]

It’s not you. They’re not working.

[brooke]

Let’s try this again…

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PmWPEOhNYY

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWfBHAZBtRE

[brooke]

I though Rich presented his arguments very succinctly in both debates (I’m obviously biased).

In the first, it is painfully obvious to anyone with any logical reasoning abilities that Mr Jolly was grasping at puppies and cupcakes to defend his argument. Charles Jolly might have interrupted a number of times, but “steamrolled” implies that Rich’s arguments did not stand up to the test.

At least the second debate focused on facts – the Sandag argument was interesting. But again, Rich’s arguments held up much better. And I thought Rich appeared much more comfortable this time.

This bubble issue is complicated, so there is a segment of the population that doesn’t want to understand it and couldn’t if it wanted to. Rich is not speaking to these people. I also know that Rich finds the Chris Matthews style of debate – whoever talks loudest wins – repulsive, so he’s not going to act like a jerk for the sake of convincing viewers who are probably hopeless anyway.

brooke

[PerryChase]

I think that Rich did a fine job.  He looked older than his picture.

However, I think that Lee did a better sales job.  It's like he were trying to convince someone to buy a house.  He's saying, yes prices are high but I can help your find an affordable house.  

Next time, rather than talk about data and economics Rich might wish to talk to the audience.  Say give an example of a young professional in UTC and compare his rent and mortgage payments.  Tell them what happened to a particular buyer who bought in 2005 and sold in 2006.  Show them the amount of money he lost. 

The public is "hopeless" because they want simple answers. Talk to them in terms of monthly payments to make them see that houses are simply not affordable.   Tell them to look at zip realty and look a prices for at least 3 months before they buy…  Tell them to look at San Diego Market Monitor.  They need to see specific examples to understand.  Tell them to not fall in love with any house…  Most of all tell them to budget their payments on paper for 5 to 10 years so they can clearly understand their financial commitments.  

 

 

[Author]

Posts