[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
So they people who said that Fed easing would cause skyrocketing interest rates were wrong. They’ve been wrong since 2008.
[/quote]

Who said that? I remember people saying the Fed’s policy would produce massive inflation, it hasn’t. I don’t remember anything about creating skyrocketing interest rates. The entire purpose of QE was to artificially suppress interest rates.

I think the interesting thing is what are the coming consequences of ending QE. We’ve yet to experience the possible negative impact of doing so much QE. What happens if a couple years down the line we find ourselves looking at an asset price crash and saying if only the fed hadn’t foolishly done so much QE.

[livinincali]

[quote=flu]People keep predicting a doomsday in the near term and that the Fed and government can kick the can down the road only so many more times.

I think it’s pretty evident, however, just how long and how far the Fed and our government can and will kick the can down the road… They are a can kicking guru, and will do the same thing over and over again if needed.
[/quote]

They managed to blow a bubble for 6 years after the NASDAQ bubble burst. We’re really only into this current bubble about 5-6 years. It’s kind of funny that we get really confident in their ability to control and manage everything right about when the bubble pops again. I remember how confident everybody was about subprime being contained back in 2007. We’re probably pretty close to being there again and we just completely ignore what happened last time thinking it’s different this time. Most of us have been through 2 big bubbles and here we are again saying it’s not a bubble. I guess we like to forget.

[livinincali]

[quote=north park girl]
FWIW, I played around with Case Schiller San Diego numbers, comparing each month’s index to the two year moving average (one year before and one year after) for 2004-2013 (basically, I tried to determine what the seasonal adjustment is). Not the most rigorous analysis, but these numbers indicate July-August-September as the best months to close price wise. So that would seem to place May-July as the best times to put it on the market.

Jan -1.6%
Feb -1.9%
Mar -1.7%
Apr -0.9%
May -0.1%
Jun 0.8%
Jul 1.5%
Aug 1.6%
Sep 1.5%
Oct 0.6%
Nov 0.1%
Dec -0.7%

Spring seems to be below average for sales price, so I’m wondering why people are saying to sell in the spring? Any data to show why that would be better that I’m missing?

I do like the idea of putting it on the market right away and testing the waters (with a credit for renovations). I do have a specific number in mind, so if I can’t get it, I may go ahead with the remodel.[/quote]

Case-Shiller is a 3 month rolling average of the previous 3 months. I.e. 1.5% in July represents April/May/June average. 1.6% Aug = May/June/July average.

In addition it looks at closing prices so the homes were likely listed somewhere between 30-60 days before the closing price was reported. So the July number is looking at stuff listed in Feb/March/April/May.

[livinincali]

I think recession in 2015 is pretty likely. Europe is probably already in recession but it hasn’t been confirmed yet, China is slowing down, and decoupling is a myth. I wouldn’t bet on the Fed resuming QE. Even if they did, the damage would already be done by the time they got around to it. The problem is that when this current asset price bubble pops there’s not going to be much to do to ignite another one.

[livinincali]

Usually spring is the best time to sell. List it the day after the super bowl at a realistic price and get a Realtor that can handle a bidding war. I suppose you could wait and see if a spring frenzy starts and pushes prices up but you do run the risk of that not happening and being late to the party if you list it in May/June.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Can’t you buy a few shares A.H.? It did beat earnings, and the HBO direct-streaming deal isn’t huge yet due to customer inertia and other Netflix offerings.

-25% is an overreaction, and it might revert to something like -10% tomorrow.[/quote]

When you’re trading 134x earnings you have to be perfect, actually better than perfect especially on growth numbers. You lost 25% of your share price and you’re still trading at > 100x earning.

[livinincali]

[quote=flu]Netflix getting crushed AH

-15%[/quote]

Try 25%. lol down over $100/sh. Would have been a good straddle play. Buy the puts and the calls just out of the money. Market wasn’t expecting that much volatility.

[livinincali]

[quote=flu]Russell 2k is green again.. Lol…..

And I’m thinking Nasdaq will go green any minute now..[/quote]

Should be some kind of temporary bottom. Now we get to see if there’s enough strength to get this thing back to new highs in the next 3-4 weeks. If it doesn’t you’ll see another big leg down.

[livinincali]

Market will probably close near the lows of the day. Get that order in and buy the dip. Of course I don’t expect that to work out very well for most investors. I do expect a bounce soon but if that bounce fails to make a new high look out below.

[livinincali]

[quote=svelte]If you have no appetite for rollercoasters, you should park your money on the side during October.

It is a notoriously volatile month.[/quote]

As is the case in every major market decline we go ahead an ignore the fact that we probably topped and are looking at a 50% decline over the next 18 months. It’s just a bad month. 10% later, time to buy the dip. 20% decline it will come back. 30% decline I’m worried but I still think the economy is doing good it will come back. 40% decline ok I’m going to sell some stuff. 50% decline oh shit it’s not coming back. Welcome to your life over the next 2 years. I bet how’s your 401K doing isn’t going to be much of a topic once this bubble pops. When you’re on a losing streak, it’s become nobody could see it coming.

[livinincali]

The parcel is owned by the same people who own the Riverwalk golf course. Don’t know what the construction is for though.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
Now, as for that “$2 Trillion Hole,” many public agencies are already addressing the unfunded liabilities. CalSTRS just enacted a new plan to pay off their unfunded liabilities over 32 years (because they can…because it’s not a DC system) by increasing contributions from all stakeholders. Most of the other pension funds are working on the numbers and legislation to pay off their unfunded liabilities, as well.
[/quote]

Problem is those plans are still counting on 7%+ average returns for today’s current levels in the stock and bond market. A 50% crash in the stock market or a long bear market in bonds blows those projections up. The cold harsh reality, the pension funds are screwed and most people expecting to receive a defined benefit will probably see somewhere between a 30-50% cut in benefits when it’s all said and done. They’ll go down kicking, screaming, and suing but the money just isn’t there.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey]Thanks for the data, phaster.

DB plans will go down in history as a failed economic experiment.[/quote]

LOL! And you think that DC pensions will go down in history as a successful experiment? Good luck with that.[/quote]

Long comfortable retirement for the masses will go down as a failed experiment. Hope you didn’t burn too many bridges with your kids because it’s live with them or get the living equivalent of 3 hots and a cot. That’s what’s eventually going to happen. The top 20% may be able to experience comfortable retirement, but the rest will be living pretty damn broke in retirement. Surviving but not thriving. There’s just not enough disposal income from the productive members of society to provide comfortable retirement for the masses.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
And your claim that public safety workers “game the system” to enhance retirement benefits? While some do (mostly state employees), most cannot. Overtime is NOT calculated in pension benefit formulas for many (most?) municipal employees. New employees are specifically prohibited from using OT to “spike” pensions (and I think it should apply across the board).
[/quote]

I worked on a project for RISK management about 12 years ago, which is the San Diego’s self funded disability insurance office. What firefighter and cops did at retirement was pretty bad. That was more a case of disability fraud, where if you retire under disability 50% of you pension income is tax free. But there were crazy things in the payroll system. People claiming to work more than 24 hours in a day. People claiming light duty (aka a disability claim) and regular duty in the same day. People like to game the system unfortunately, and defined benefit contribution plans like the ones that are currently designed encourage that unethical but possibly legal behavior.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
Wrong. Public employees are the only ones to take a hit, so far. Many haven’t had a raise in over 6 years…many have had their compensation reduced, some by a large amount. READ what I’ve posted, above, about how employees are having to contribute more to their pensions…and more increases are on the way.
[/quote]

The problem is the total cost of employee isn’t what they see in their pay check. San Diego’s revenue stream has been pretty flat and just growing with GDP/inflation at best. The problem is that things like healthcare benefits and pension issues are growing at a faster rate so somehow the city has to reduce it’s costs. It has done so via pay freezes, laying people off, etc. In some cases the citizens took a hit, your water bill has gone quite a bit over the past 5-6 years correct. In some cases services were reduced. In some cases employee got pay freezes or pay reductions. With all those cuts the pension plan is still underfunded.

Let’s say tomorrow we magically get a 10% increase in city revenues. Are we going to use that money to shore up the pension system or give employees raises who haven’t had a raise in 6 years. My guess is we’ll give raises now and leave the pension system underfunded because that’s a problem in the future. That act of giving employees raises makes the pension problem worse because of how most of these defined benefit pension plans work.

These defined benefit plans just don’t manage the risks properly. They never have. Most of them are going to fail one way or another.

Look at social security. You contribute 13.6% of your salary. If you make 50K per year and wait until 70 to retire you get 50% of your salary. If you retire at 62 you get about 25% of you salary. If you make $100K per year you get 37% of your salary at 70, at 62 you get 20%. So that’s far less of a benefit and even that system is in some trouble.

The problem for the public sector employees is that combined the employee and employer might be putting in 20% max which is more than social security, but the benefit is far higher. Usually something like 60% of your highest salary. Plus you tend to retire earlier. So a social security system that’s in a bit of trouble pays like 20-25% of you salary at 62 but the public sector wants to get 60% at 60 or so. It’s just not going to work. You might be able to do it but you’d need to contribute 30-35% percent of your compensation or assume unrealistic returns and end up unfunded.

[Author]

Posts