Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM in reply to: Dow Closes below 13000 today. Down 167 points. NDQ -40, S&P -19.8 #76465
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantThe CFC situation is too volatile in my mind to take a contrarian view.
I am, however, more optimistic about the large banks (e.g. BofA, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) I think they will survive and that there will be opportunities through this mess to pick those up on the cheap.ParticipantThe CFC situation is too volatile in my mind to take a contrarian view.
I am, however, more optimistic about the large banks (e.g. BofA, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) I think they will survive and that there will be opportunities through this mess to pick those up on the cheap.ParticipantThe CFC situation is too volatile in my mind to take a contrarian view.
I am, however, more optimistic about the large banks (e.g. BofA, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) I think they will survive and that there will be opportunities through this mess to pick those up on the cheap.ParticipantRocket science – I think you were referring to my graph. Not Alex’s. Pleeze don’t confuse me with him.
I pulled the chart from a discussion we had a couple months ago. In that discussion I plotted both on linear and logarithmic scales. (linear plot below).
In that discussion someone asked what “normal” growth rates are. Well, that’s anyone’s guess. FOr these plots I tried to put a growth rate that intersected the bottom of the market in 1996-1997.
I made a half-assed projection based on the same percentage decline as the last housing bust, then extending it for several years further at the peak rate of decline.
I came up with an optimistic correction of a nominal 20% decline through 2012. Adding about 3% inflation that is a 41% real decline. This is the optimistic range of what I expect. When take more conservative growth rates (e.g. 5% from a “fair value” price in 1998) it’s a bit worse as you indicate in the 40-50% range, depending on how quickly it happens.
Sorry I didn’t have the entire explanation. I was too lazy to look up the entire thread. Just wanted to show Alex that some of our guesses on the market are based on analysis rather than being pulled completely out of thin air.
As a rocket scientist you should appreciate the log scale. A constant growth (or decline) rate shows up as a line on a log scale. Some people have a problem seeing the linear scale go exponential.
[img_assist|nid=3596|title=another half-a$$ed projection|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=349]
ParticipantRocket science – I think you were referring to my graph. Not Alex’s. Pleeze don’t confuse me with him.
I pulled the chart from a discussion we had a couple months ago. In that discussion I plotted both on linear and logarithmic scales. (linear plot below).
In that discussion someone asked what “normal” growth rates are. Well, that’s anyone’s guess. FOr these plots I tried to put a growth rate that intersected the bottom of the market in 1996-1997.
I made a half-assed projection based on the same percentage decline as the last housing bust, then extending it for several years further at the peak rate of decline.
I came up with an optimistic correction of a nominal 20% decline through 2012. Adding about 3% inflation that is a 41% real decline. This is the optimistic range of what I expect. When take more conservative growth rates (e.g. 5% from a “fair value” price in 1998) it’s a bit worse as you indicate in the 40-50% range, depending on how quickly it happens.
Sorry I didn’t have the entire explanation. I was too lazy to look up the entire thread. Just wanted to show Alex that some of our guesses on the market are based on analysis rather than being pulled completely out of thin air.
As a rocket scientist you should appreciate the log scale. A constant growth (or decline) rate shows up as a line on a log scale. Some people have a problem seeing the linear scale go exponential.
[img_assist|nid=3596|title=another half-a$$ed projection|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=349]
ParticipantRocket science – I think you were referring to my graph. Not Alex’s. Pleeze don’t confuse me with him.
I pulled the chart from a discussion we had a couple months ago. In that discussion I plotted both on linear and logarithmic scales. (linear plot below).
In that discussion someone asked what “normal” growth rates are. Well, that’s anyone’s guess. FOr these plots I tried to put a growth rate that intersected the bottom of the market in 1996-1997.
I made a half-assed projection based on the same percentage decline as the last housing bust, then extending it for several years further at the peak rate of decline.
I came up with an optimistic correction of a nominal 20% decline through 2012. Adding about 3% inflation that is a 41% real decline. This is the optimistic range of what I expect. When take more conservative growth rates (e.g. 5% from a “fair value” price in 1998) it’s a bit worse as you indicate in the 40-50% range, depending on how quickly it happens.
Sorry I didn’t have the entire explanation. I was too lazy to look up the entire thread. Just wanted to show Alex that some of our guesses on the market are based on analysis rather than being pulled completely out of thin air.
As a rocket scientist you should appreciate the log scale. A constant growth (or decline) rate shows up as a line on a log scale. Some people have a problem seeing the linear scale go exponential.
[img_assist|nid=3596|title=another half-a$$ed projection|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=349]
ParticipantSo what do you do when you have a current (small) mortgage with CFC? I am sure they will reorganize, no?
Call them tomorrow and ask if you can refinance. If nobody calls you back that would be an indication of where they are headed.
ParticipantSo what do you do when you have a current (small) mortgage with CFC? I am sure they will reorganize, no?
Call them tomorrow and ask if you can refinance. If nobody calls you back that would be an indication of where they are headed.
ParticipantSo what do you do when you have a current (small) mortgage with CFC? I am sure they will reorganize, no?
Call them tomorrow and ask if you can refinance. If nobody calls you back that would be an indication of where they are headed.
ParticipantA partial explanation: Some of these homes may not have mortgages on them.
About 23% of homes in SD don’t have mortgages according to the source below as of 2005 … ” 77.2% of San Diego’s owner occupied homes had a mortgage. 31.7% of owner occupied homes in San Diego had one or more second mortgages.”
http://www.citytowninfo.com/places/california/san-diego/mortgage
ParticipantA partial explanation: Some of these homes may not have mortgages on them.
About 23% of homes in SD don’t have mortgages according to the source below as of 2005 … ” 77.2% of San Diego’s owner occupied homes had a mortgage. 31.7% of owner occupied homes in San Diego had one or more second mortgages.”
http://www.citytowninfo.com/places/california/san-diego/mortgage
ParticipantA partial explanation: Some of these homes may not have mortgages on them.
About 23% of homes in SD don’t have mortgages according to the source below as of 2005 … ” 77.2% of San Diego’s owner occupied homes had a mortgage. 31.7% of owner occupied homes in San Diego had one or more second mortgages.”
http://www.citytowninfo.com/places/california/san-diego/mortgage
ParticipantSome of us do quantitative analysis with estimates based on historical growth rates to do our projections or we also estimate changes in rent and apply rent vs own scenarios to come up with our estimates.
Below is an example of the first approach.
[img_assist|nid=3604|title=Basic growth rate plot|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=349]
ParticipantSome of us do quantitative analysis with estimates based on historical growth rates to do our projections or we also estimate changes in rent and apply rent vs own scenarios to come up with our estimates.
Below is an example of the first approach.
[img_assist|nid=3604|title=Basic growth rate plot|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=349]
-
AuthorPosts
