[cr]

dbl post.

[cr]

Given the strength of the Yuan and the fact that China still grew by 10.6% the first quarter I think we have more to worry about here.

Real estate is far from played out, and even if China doesn’t sell of their less and less valuable US bonds, they’re still growing and we aren’t.

I think their weakness was spillover from ours, in a year they’ll be higher and we’ll be lucky to be where we are today. Why? China is becoming less and less dependent on US consumption, at some point they will sell their bonds, a lot of their speculation was from the US (most emerging market funds were up ~25% last year). As things deteriorate here further, (if you agree today is not the sign of a turn-around) China will continue to grow and attract further investment. We’re nowhere near reversing our trade deficit with them and they may see a correction in RE, but China’s dependence on us is weakening.

[cr]

Given the strength of the Yuan and the fact that China still grew by 10.6% the first quarter I think we have more to worry about here.

Real estate is far from played out, and even if China doesn’t sell of their less and less valuable US bonds, they’re still growing and we aren’t.

I think their weakness was spillover from ours, in a year they’ll be higher and we’ll be lucky to be where we are today. Why? China is becoming less and less dependent on US consumption, at some point they will sell their bonds, a lot of their speculation was from the US (most emerging market funds were up ~25% last year). As things deteriorate here further, (if you agree today is not the sign of a turn-around) China will continue to grow and attract further investment. We’re nowhere near reversing our trade deficit with them and they may see a correction in RE, but China’s dependence on us is weakening.

[cr]

Given the strength of the Yuan and the fact that China still grew by 10.6% the first quarter I think we have more to worry about here.

Real estate is far from played out, and even if China doesn’t sell of their less and less valuable US bonds, they’re still growing and we aren’t.

I think their weakness was spillover from ours, in a year they’ll be higher and we’ll be lucky to be where we are today. Why? China is becoming less and less dependent on US consumption, at some point they will sell their bonds, a lot of their speculation was from the US (most emerging market funds were up ~25% last year). As things deteriorate here further, (if you agree today is not the sign of a turn-around) China will continue to grow and attract further investment. We’re nowhere near reversing our trade deficit with them and they may see a correction in RE, but China’s dependence on us is weakening.

[cr]

Given the strength of the Yuan and the fact that China still grew by 10.6% the first quarter I think we have more to worry about here.

Real estate is far from played out, and even if China doesn’t sell of their less and less valuable US bonds, they’re still growing and we aren’t.

I think their weakness was spillover from ours, in a year they’ll be higher and we’ll be lucky to be where we are today. Why? China is becoming less and less dependent on US consumption, at some point they will sell their bonds, a lot of their speculation was from the US (most emerging market funds were up ~25% last year). As things deteriorate here further, (if you agree today is not the sign of a turn-around) China will continue to grow and attract further investment. We’re nowhere near reversing our trade deficit with them and they may see a correction in RE, but China’s dependence on us is weakening.

[cr]

Given the strength of the Yuan and the fact that China still grew by 10.6% the first quarter I think we have more to worry about here.

Real estate is far from played out, and even if China doesn’t sell of their less and less valuable US bonds, they’re still growing and we aren’t.

I think their weakness was spillover from ours, in a year they’ll be higher and we’ll be lucky to be where we are today. Why? China is becoming less and less dependent on US consumption, at some point they will sell their bonds, a lot of their speculation was from the US (most emerging market funds were up ~25% last year). As things deteriorate here further, (if you agree today is not the sign of a turn-around) China will continue to grow and attract further investment. We’re nowhere near reversing our trade deficit with them and they may see a correction in RE, but China’s dependence on us is weakening.

[cr]

“People with assets in reserve and a credit score of at least 680 should buy as well. Anyone with a credit score less than that will have to verify their income.”

To me this is further proof that faith in real estate is not fully shattered yet. Sure it’s this guy’s job to sell mortgages, but the fact that his comment is presented as credible, particularly given the “verify their income” line, tells me there is still air in the deflating bubble.

Coming off the euphoria that real estate goes up forever I don’t see a bottom until the prevailing sentiment is unequivocally against buying.

[cr]

“People with assets in reserve and a credit score of at least 680 should buy as well. Anyone with a credit score less than that will have to verify their income.”

To me this is further proof that faith in real estate is not fully shattered yet. Sure it’s this guy’s job to sell mortgages, but the fact that his comment is presented as credible, particularly given the “verify their income” line, tells me there is still air in the deflating bubble.

Coming off the euphoria that real estate goes up forever I don’t see a bottom until the prevailing sentiment is unequivocally against buying.

[cr]

“People with assets in reserve and a credit score of at least 680 should buy as well. Anyone with a credit score less than that will have to verify their income.”

To me this is further proof that faith in real estate is not fully shattered yet. Sure it’s this guy’s job to sell mortgages, but the fact that his comment is presented as credible, particularly given the “verify their income” line, tells me there is still air in the deflating bubble.

Coming off the euphoria that real estate goes up forever I don’t see a bottom until the prevailing sentiment is unequivocally against buying.

[cr]

“People with assets in reserve and a credit score of at least 680 should buy as well. Anyone with a credit score less than that will have to verify their income.”

To me this is further proof that faith in real estate is not fully shattered yet. Sure it’s this guy’s job to sell mortgages, but the fact that his comment is presented as credible, particularly given the “verify their income” line, tells me there is still air in the deflating bubble.

Coming off the euphoria that real estate goes up forever I don’t see a bottom until the prevailing sentiment is unequivocally against buying.

[cr]

“People with assets in reserve and a credit score of at least 680 should buy as well. Anyone with a credit score less than that will have to verify their income.”

To me this is further proof that faith in real estate is not fully shattered yet. Sure it’s this guy’s job to sell mortgages, but the fact that his comment is presented as credible, particularly given the “verify their income” line, tells me there is still air in the deflating bubble.

Coming off the euphoria that real estate goes up forever I don’t see a bottom until the prevailing sentiment is unequivocally against buying.

[cr]

I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

[cr]

I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

[cr]

I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

[cr]

I think he means a flat 1.5% the moment a home in the area goes into foreclosure.

Here’s a question though: would you prefer people walk on their mortgages or the government bail them out?

Both have negative moral implications. People walking out will cause banks to make up the loss on new loans, while a bailout will tend to keep prices inflated.

Given that I have to say I’d rather see people walk. As banks raise rates to cover their losses, it should drive down demand even more.

[Author]

Posts