Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 14, 2008 at 12:06 AM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #257021
CA renter
ParticipantSold for just over $383K in 1997.
Wait until it hits $450K or so.
CA renter
ParticipantSold for just over $383K in 1997.
Wait until it hits $450K or so.
CA renter
ParticipantSold for just over $383K in 1997.
Wait until it hits $450K or so.
CA renter
ParticipantSold for just over $383K in 1997.
Wait until it hits $450K or so.
CA renter
ParticipantSold for just over $383K in 1997.
Wait until it hits $450K or so.
August 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256694CA renter
ParticipantHow would you explain yourself, especially the prophet part, to the people that you were screaming at in 2001 who sold in 2005?
——————–In defense of the bears from 2001 (and I’m one of them), we were early, not necessarily wrong. If prices go below 2001 levels, inflation-adjusted, then can we admit that prices were over-valued in 2001?
It’s difficult to make predictions when the Fed and govt entities manipulate markets like they did. We’ve just seen the biggest credit bubble in history.
This was not a “housing” bubble. The normal RE cycle was topping in 2001, and it would have been the right call to hold off on buying IF the Fed didn’t let loose with the negative (real) interest rates.
It’s the loose lending that drove prices since 2001, not housing fundamentals, IMHO.
August 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256874CA renter
ParticipantHow would you explain yourself, especially the prophet part, to the people that you were screaming at in 2001 who sold in 2005?
——————–In defense of the bears from 2001 (and I’m one of them), we were early, not necessarily wrong. If prices go below 2001 levels, inflation-adjusted, then can we admit that prices were over-valued in 2001?
It’s difficult to make predictions when the Fed and govt entities manipulate markets like they did. We’ve just seen the biggest credit bubble in history.
This was not a “housing” bubble. The normal RE cycle was topping in 2001, and it would have been the right call to hold off on buying IF the Fed didn’t let loose with the negative (real) interest rates.
It’s the loose lending that drove prices since 2001, not housing fundamentals, IMHO.
August 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256880CA renter
ParticipantHow would you explain yourself, especially the prophet part, to the people that you were screaming at in 2001 who sold in 2005?
——————–In defense of the bears from 2001 (and I’m one of them), we were early, not necessarily wrong. If prices go below 2001 levels, inflation-adjusted, then can we admit that prices were over-valued in 2001?
It’s difficult to make predictions when the Fed and govt entities manipulate markets like they did. We’ve just seen the biggest credit bubble in history.
This was not a “housing” bubble. The normal RE cycle was topping in 2001, and it would have been the right call to hold off on buying IF the Fed didn’t let loose with the negative (real) interest rates.
It’s the loose lending that drove prices since 2001, not housing fundamentals, IMHO.
August 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256938CA renter
ParticipantHow would you explain yourself, especially the prophet part, to the people that you were screaming at in 2001 who sold in 2005?
——————–In defense of the bears from 2001 (and I’m one of them), we were early, not necessarily wrong. If prices go below 2001 levels, inflation-adjusted, then can we admit that prices were over-valued in 2001?
It’s difficult to make predictions when the Fed and govt entities manipulate markets like they did. We’ve just seen the biggest credit bubble in history.
This was not a “housing” bubble. The normal RE cycle was topping in 2001, and it would have been the right call to hold off on buying IF the Fed didn’t let loose with the negative (real) interest rates.
It’s the loose lending that drove prices since 2001, not housing fundamentals, IMHO.
August 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256986CA renter
ParticipantHow would you explain yourself, especially the prophet part, to the people that you were screaming at in 2001 who sold in 2005?
——————–In defense of the bears from 2001 (and I’m one of them), we were early, not necessarily wrong. If prices go below 2001 levels, inflation-adjusted, then can we admit that prices were over-valued in 2001?
It’s difficult to make predictions when the Fed and govt entities manipulate markets like they did. We’ve just seen the biggest credit bubble in history.
This was not a “housing” bubble. The normal RE cycle was topping in 2001, and it would have been the right call to hold off on buying IF the Fed didn’t let loose with the negative (real) interest rates.
It’s the loose lending that drove prices since 2001, not housing fundamentals, IMHO.
August 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256190CA renter
ParticipantDemand is affected by what buyers are willing and **able** to pay.
People are overstating the effects of foreclosures, IMHO. Even if there were NO foreclosures, prices would go down if lending standards became rational (20% down, 28% max DTI on verified income, 6 months’ reserves, etc.).
Loose lending is what drove prices up since at least 2001.
People who “stayed put” didn’t affect housing prices on the way up, and they won’t affect prices on the way down. The only houses that affect prices are those that sell. If unqualified buyers can no longer buy over-priced homes with Monopoly money, the ruse is over.
August 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256371CA renter
ParticipantDemand is affected by what buyers are willing and **able** to pay.
People are overstating the effects of foreclosures, IMHO. Even if there were NO foreclosures, prices would go down if lending standards became rational (20% down, 28% max DTI on verified income, 6 months’ reserves, etc.).
Loose lending is what drove prices up since at least 2001.
People who “stayed put” didn’t affect housing prices on the way up, and they won’t affect prices on the way down. The only houses that affect prices are those that sell. If unqualified buyers can no longer buy over-priced homes with Monopoly money, the ruse is over.
August 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256378CA renter
ParticipantDemand is affected by what buyers are willing and **able** to pay.
People are overstating the effects of foreclosures, IMHO. Even if there were NO foreclosures, prices would go down if lending standards became rational (20% down, 28% max DTI on verified income, 6 months’ reserves, etc.).
Loose lending is what drove prices up since at least 2001.
People who “stayed put” didn’t affect housing prices on the way up, and they won’t affect prices on the way down. The only houses that affect prices are those that sell. If unqualified buyers can no longer buy over-priced homes with Monopoly money, the ruse is over.
August 12, 2008 at 4:42 PM in reply to: Peter Schiff: Housing prices will go back to 2000 or lower… #256433CA renter
ParticipantDemand is affected by what buyers are willing and **able** to pay.
People are overstating the effects of foreclosures, IMHO. Even if there were NO foreclosures, prices would go down if lending standards became rational (20% down, 28% max DTI on verified income, 6 months’ reserves, etc.).
Loose lending is what drove prices up since at least 2001.
People who “stayed put” didn’t affect housing prices on the way up, and they won’t affect prices on the way down. The only houses that affect prices are those that sell. If unqualified buyers can no longer buy over-priced homes with Monopoly money, the ruse is over.
-
AuthorPosts
