Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Mean Reversion
ParticipantI believe your theory has validity but I have more certainty in another theory: that the government will attempt to inflate us out of this mess.
That is why I want to own a home ASAP (within reason). And why I wouldn’t be surprised to see the stock market priced higher and higher in years to come.
Sure, if you price the stock market in gold or Euros, then the stock market has been pathetic. But nominally, it looks like it has held up because of asset inflation. Thanks to the government printing money at a pace never before seen.
Ironically, the government can’t can’t let the stock market or housing prices drop in price too drastically exactly because of the reason you stated. Baby boomers are depending on their homes and their stock market 401k assets for retirement.
In essence, the government can outprint and outpace the upcoming 401k withdrawals.
ParticipantI believe your theory has validity but I have more certainty in another theory: that the government will attempt to inflate us out of this mess.
That is why I want to own a home ASAP (within reason). And why I wouldn’t be surprised to see the stock market priced higher and higher in years to come.
Sure, if you price the stock market in gold or Euros, then the stock market has been pathetic. But nominally, it looks like it has held up because of asset inflation. Thanks to the government printing money at a pace never before seen.
Ironically, the government can’t can’t let the stock market or housing prices drop in price too drastically exactly because of the reason you stated. Baby boomers are depending on their homes and their stock market 401k assets for retirement.
In essence, the government can outprint and outpace the upcoming 401k withdrawals.
ParticipantI believe your theory has validity but I have more certainty in another theory: that the government will attempt to inflate us out of this mess.
That is why I want to own a home ASAP (within reason). And why I wouldn’t be surprised to see the stock market priced higher and higher in years to come.
Sure, if you price the stock market in gold or Euros, then the stock market has been pathetic. But nominally, it looks like it has held up because of asset inflation. Thanks to the government printing money at a pace never before seen.
Ironically, the government can’t can’t let the stock market or housing prices drop in price too drastically exactly because of the reason you stated. Baby boomers are depending on their homes and their stock market 401k assets for retirement.
In essence, the government can outprint and outpace the upcoming 401k withdrawals.
ParticipantI believe your theory has validity but I have more certainty in another theory: that the government will attempt to inflate us out of this mess.
That is why I want to own a home ASAP (within reason). And why I wouldn’t be surprised to see the stock market priced higher and higher in years to come.
Sure, if you price the stock market in gold or Euros, then the stock market has been pathetic. But nominally, it looks like it has held up because of asset inflation. Thanks to the government printing money at a pace never before seen.
Ironically, the government can’t can’t let the stock market or housing prices drop in price too drastically exactly because of the reason you stated. Baby boomers are depending on their homes and their stock market 401k assets for retirement.
In essence, the government can outprint and outpace the upcoming 401k withdrawals.
ParticipantWhy not? It is called the average.
Not everyone is an old fart that lives in 1970 built homes.
ParticipantWhy not? It is called the average.
Not everyone is an old fart that lives in 1970 built homes.
ParticipantWhy not? It is called the average.
Not everyone is an old fart that lives in 1970 built homes.
ParticipantWhy not? It is called the average.
Not everyone is an old fart that lives in 1970 built homes.
ParticipantWhy not? It is called the average.
Not everyone is an old fart that lives in 1970 built homes.
ParticipantHey, no apologies needed. Thanks nonetheless.
The article basically reads “more people who own homes have less than 50% equity”, which I felt was like “no kidding, really?”. What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That’s what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn’t consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.
I thought that was exactly what the article was saying. That of ALL US homeowners (not just buyers during this boom), if you take their % equity, then the average would be less than 50%.
ParticipantHey, no apologies needed. Thanks nonetheless.
The article basically reads “more people who own homes have less than 50% equity”, which I felt was like “no kidding, really?”. What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That’s what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn’t consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.
I thought that was exactly what the article was saying. That of ALL US homeowners (not just buyers during this boom), if you take their % equity, then the average would be less than 50%.
ParticipantHey, no apologies needed. Thanks nonetheless.
The article basically reads “more people who own homes have less than 50% equity”, which I felt was like “no kidding, really?”. What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That’s what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn’t consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.
I thought that was exactly what the article was saying. That of ALL US homeowners (not just buyers during this boom), if you take their % equity, then the average would be less than 50%.
ParticipantHey, no apologies needed. Thanks nonetheless.
The article basically reads “more people who own homes have less than 50% equity”, which I felt was like “no kidding, really?”. What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That’s what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn’t consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.
I thought that was exactly what the article was saying. That of ALL US homeowners (not just buyers during this boom), if you take their % equity, then the average would be less than 50%.
ParticipantHey, no apologies needed. Thanks nonetheless.
The article basically reads “more people who own homes have less than 50% equity”, which I felt was like “no kidding, really?”. What I found was missing was, what total percentage of home owners of the entire U.S. owners are less than 50% equity. That’s what I was curious, but never found. I mean, if the change was from 20% of all u.s. home owners to say 21%, I wouldn’t consider this significant. If however, this changed from 20% to say 60%, well yes that would be significant.
I thought that was exactly what the article was saying. That of ALL US homeowners (not just buyers during this boom), if you take their % equity, then the average would be less than 50%.
-
AuthorPosts
