[CA renter]

BKlawyer,

Yes, I remember your radio show with Ben (didn’t know you had Rich on as well), and you were right in many of your predictions on the blogs. Also, your “on the street” observations (early on, when the numbers were not showing any deterioration just yet) were much appreciated by me and many others!

As most long-time bears can attest, it’s difficult to not indulge in a little Schadenfreude…if only because of the extreme hostility and flat-out denials that RE could ever go down.

——–

Thanks, Rus! There are good Realtors and bad ones, and the realtors on this blog are of the “good” variety! 🙂

Your (and the SD Realtors –big and small) insights are also much appreciated.

You have to admit, it was tough on the bears in the 2001-2005/6 timeframe. I’ve had every friend, acquaintance, and member of my family — with the exception of my dad — give me a lot of grief for selling and renting. Straight-up screaming matches with the MIL who accused me of keeping her son from ever becoming a homeowner again (I was the one who owned a house when we married).

Sometimes, when we’re under so much pressure for so long, it’s hard to be humble when it turns out we were right.

Best to all, and have a good night! 🙂

[CA renter]

Sold for just over $383K in 1997.

Wait until it hits $450K or so.

[CA renter]

Sold for just over $383K in 1997.

Wait until it hits $450K or so.

[CA renter]

Sold for just over $383K in 1997.

Wait until it hits $450K or so.

[CA renter]

Sold for just over $383K in 1997.

Wait until it hits $450K or so.

[CA renter]

Sold for just over $383K in 1997.

Wait until it hits $450K or so.

[CA renter]

How 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.

[CA renter]

How 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.

[CA renter]

How 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.

[CA renter]

How 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.

[CA renter]

How 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.

[CA renter]

Demand 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.

[CA renter]

Demand 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.

[CA renter]

Demand 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.

[CA renter]

Demand 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.

[Author]

Posts