Interesting graphs esmith.
In the 1990 housing bust the high tier fell quite a bit faster and than the low tier, and eventually evened out.
In this bust they seem to be doing the opposite (so far).
If memory serves, the 90s bust was job related, whereas this one is speculation/investment/lax lending related. It is interesting to see how this affects the downturn differently than the previous one.
Interesting graphs esmith.
In the 1990 housing bust the high tier fell quite a bit faster and than the low tier, and eventually evened out.
In this bust they seem to be doing the opposite (so far).
If memory serves, the 90s bust was job related, whereas this one is speculation/investment/lax lending related. It is interesting to see how this affects the downturn differently than the previous one.
Interesting graphs esmith.
In the 1990 housing bust the high tier fell quite a bit faster and than the low tier, and eventually evened out.
In this bust they seem to be doing the opposite (so far).
If memory serves, the 90s bust was job related, whereas this one is speculation/investment/lax lending related. It is interesting to see how this affects the downturn differently than the previous one.
Interesting graphs esmith.
In the 1990 housing bust the high tier fell quite a bit faster and than the low tier, and eventually evened out.
In this bust they seem to be doing the opposite (so far).
If memory serves, the 90s bust was job related, whereas this one is speculation/investment/lax lending related. It is interesting to see how this affects the downturn differently than the previous one.
Interesting graphs esmith.
In the 1990 housing bust the high tier fell quite a bit faster and than the low tier, and eventually evened out.
In this bust they seem to be doing the opposite (so far).
If memory serves, the 90s bust was job related, whereas this one is speculation/investment/lax lending related. It is interesting to see how this affects the downturn differently than the previous one.