[patientrenter]

[quote=Doooh]So Realtors are the overpaid equivalent of a Radio show host who says “The next caller to dial 570-1007 is the winner.” You guys are jokers.

I’m in the wrong business if this is the case.

With cash in hand what the hell am I doing acting like a your regular Joe SixPack buyer. Waiting for MLS listings is for the birds. I’ll go out and find my own delinquent seller. This games rigged and I’m out to win now.[/quote]

You have it dead right, Doooh.

We all know the banks are getting bailed out on these bad loans by the taxpayers. And here are scams designed to increase these public losses for private gain. It may not be illegal, but it is absolutely immoral. I wouldn’t do business with a so-called professional who thinks this is acceptable conduct.

What is most unsettling is that some RE professionals consider this normal. We all suspected that these bailouts were an excuse to send an enormous amount of money to support slimy people engaging in slimy behavior. Now we can see one more piece of evidence.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Doooh]So Realtors are the overpaid equivalent of a Radio show host who says “The next caller to dial 570-1007 is the winner.” You guys are jokers.

I’m in the wrong business if this is the case.

With cash in hand what the hell am I doing acting like a your regular Joe SixPack buyer. Waiting for MLS listings is for the birds. I’ll go out and find my own delinquent seller. This games rigged and I’m out to win now.[/quote]

You have it dead right, Doooh.

We all know the banks are getting bailed out on these bad loans by the taxpayers. And here are scams designed to increase these public losses for private gain. It may not be illegal, but it is absolutely immoral. I wouldn’t do business with a so-called professional who thinks this is acceptable conduct.

What is most unsettling is that some RE professionals consider this normal. We all suspected that these bailouts were an excuse to send an enormous amount of money to support slimy people engaging in slimy behavior. Now we can see one more piece of evidence.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Doooh]So Realtors are the overpaid equivalent of a Radio show host who says “The next caller to dial 570-1007 is the winner.” You guys are jokers.

I’m in the wrong business if this is the case.

With cash in hand what the hell am I doing acting like a your regular Joe SixPack buyer. Waiting for MLS listings is for the birds. I’ll go out and find my own delinquent seller. This games rigged and I’m out to win now.[/quote]

You have it dead right, Doooh.

We all know the banks are getting bailed out on these bad loans by the taxpayers. And here are scams designed to increase these public losses for private gain. It may not be illegal, but it is absolutely immoral. I wouldn’t do business with a so-called professional who thinks this is acceptable conduct.

What is most unsettling is that some RE professionals consider this normal. We all suspected that these bailouts were an excuse to send an enormous amount of money to support slimy people engaging in slimy behavior. Now we can see one more piece of evidence.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Doooh]So Realtors are the overpaid equivalent of a Radio show host who says “The next caller to dial 570-1007 is the winner.” You guys are jokers.

I’m in the wrong business if this is the case.

With cash in hand what the hell am I doing acting like a your regular Joe SixPack buyer. Waiting for MLS listings is for the birds. I’ll go out and find my own delinquent seller. This games rigged and I’m out to win now.[/quote]

You have it dead right, Doooh.

We all know the banks are getting bailed out on these bad loans by the taxpayers. And here are scams designed to increase these public losses for private gain. It may not be illegal, but it is absolutely immoral. I wouldn’t do business with a so-called professional who thinks this is acceptable conduct.

What is most unsettling is that some RE professionals consider this normal. We all suspected that these bailouts were an excuse to send an enormous amount of money to support slimy people engaging in slimy behavior. Now we can see one more piece of evidence.

[patientrenter]

[quote=CA renter]Lest we forget, this $2 billion is in addition to the hundreds of millions that California has spent on its own “tax credits” for housing over the past couple of years.[/quote]

Luckily for California, it is not going through a budget crunch that forces legislators to focus all the money on essential services.

[patientrenter]

[quote=CA renter]Lest we forget, this $2 billion is in addition to the hundreds of millions that California has spent on its own “tax credits” for housing over the past couple of years.[/quote]

Luckily for California, it is not going through a budget crunch that forces legislators to focus all the money on essential services.

[patientrenter]

[quote=CA renter]Lest we forget, this $2 billion is in addition to the hundreds of millions that California has spent on its own “tax credits” for housing over the past couple of years.[/quote]

Luckily for California, it is not going through a budget crunch that forces legislators to focus all the money on essential services.

[patientrenter]

[quote=CA renter]Lest we forget, this $2 billion is in addition to the hundreds of millions that California has spent on its own “tax credits” for housing over the past couple of years.[/quote]

Luckily for California, it is not going through a budget crunch that forces legislators to focus all the money on essential services.

[patientrenter]

[quote=CA renter]Lest we forget, this $2 billion is in addition to the hundreds of millions that California has spent on its own “tax credits” for housing over the past couple of years.[/quote]

Luckily for California, it is not going through a budget crunch that forces legislators to focus all the money on essential services.

[patientrenter]

I am impressed with your ability to include graphs with your posts, Eugene.

Rich hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, when you buy US stocks you are buying a share in the aggregate future earnings of US companies, which itself is a slice of the US GDP. When price/GDP ratios are high, you are paying a lot, and when price/GDP ratios are low you are paying a little.

Rich’s method is sound. Divide that historical (Stock price)/GDP analysis up into two pieces:

(Stock prices) / GDP = A x B, where

A = (Stock prices) / (Smoothed earnings), and

B = (Smoothed earnings) / GDP.

Sure, A and B move over time, but the further they get from historical values, viewed over several generations, the less likely they are to stick. When both ratios are high compared to historical values, the warning lights start to flash twice as fast.

Smoothing earnings is best done using an approach like Shiller’s (that Rich also uses), employing a long term moving average. Over the long run, this kind of smoothed result is guaranteed to converge to the actual results, making it an unbiased estimate. Your approach to smoothing is interesting, but it is far too subjective to be an unbiased or otherwise reliable estimate of underlying earnings.

[patientrenter]

I am impressed with your ability to include graphs with your posts, Eugene.

Rich hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, when you buy US stocks you are buying a share in the aggregate future earnings of US companies, which itself is a slice of the US GDP. When price/GDP ratios are high, you are paying a lot, and when price/GDP ratios are low you are paying a little.

Rich’s method is sound. Divide that historical (Stock price)/GDP analysis up into two pieces:

(Stock prices) / GDP = A x B, where

A = (Stock prices) / (Smoothed earnings), and

B = (Smoothed earnings) / GDP.

Sure, A and B move over time, but the further they get from historical values, viewed over several generations, the less likely they are to stick. When both ratios are high compared to historical values, the warning lights start to flash twice as fast.

Smoothing earnings is best done using an approach like Shiller’s (that Rich also uses), employing a long term moving average. Over the long run, this kind of smoothed result is guaranteed to converge to the actual results, making it an unbiased estimate. Your approach to smoothing is interesting, but it is far too subjective to be an unbiased or otherwise reliable estimate of underlying earnings.

[patientrenter]

I am impressed with your ability to include graphs with your posts, Eugene.

Rich hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, when you buy US stocks you are buying a share in the aggregate future earnings of US companies, which itself is a slice of the US GDP. When price/GDP ratios are high, you are paying a lot, and when price/GDP ratios are low you are paying a little.

Rich’s method is sound. Divide that historical (Stock price)/GDP analysis up into two pieces:

(Stock prices) / GDP = A x B, where

A = (Stock prices) / (Smoothed earnings), and

B = (Smoothed earnings) / GDP.

Sure, A and B move over time, but the further they get from historical values, viewed over several generations, the less likely they are to stick. When both ratios are high compared to historical values, the warning lights start to flash twice as fast.

Smoothing earnings is best done using an approach like Shiller’s (that Rich also uses), employing a long term moving average. Over the long run, this kind of smoothed result is guaranteed to converge to the actual results, making it an unbiased estimate. Your approach to smoothing is interesting, but it is far too subjective to be an unbiased or otherwise reliable estimate of underlying earnings.

[patientrenter]

I am impressed with your ability to include graphs with your posts, Eugene.

Rich hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, when you buy US stocks you are buying a share in the aggregate future earnings of US companies, which itself is a slice of the US GDP. When price/GDP ratios are high, you are paying a lot, and when price/GDP ratios are low you are paying a little.

Rich’s method is sound. Divide that historical (Stock price)/GDP analysis up into two pieces:

(Stock prices) / GDP = A x B, where

A = (Stock prices) / (Smoothed earnings), and

B = (Smoothed earnings) / GDP.

Sure, A and B move over time, but the further they get from historical values, viewed over several generations, the less likely they are to stick. When both ratios are high compared to historical values, the warning lights start to flash twice as fast.

Smoothing earnings is best done using an approach like Shiller’s (that Rich also uses), employing a long term moving average. Over the long run, this kind of smoothed result is guaranteed to converge to the actual results, making it an unbiased estimate. Your approach to smoothing is interesting, but it is far too subjective to be an unbiased or otherwise reliable estimate of underlying earnings.

[patientrenter]

I am impressed with your ability to include graphs with your posts, Eugene.

Rich hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, when you buy US stocks you are buying a share in the aggregate future earnings of US companies, which itself is a slice of the US GDP. When price/GDP ratios are high, you are paying a lot, and when price/GDP ratios are low you are paying a little.

Rich’s method is sound. Divide that historical (Stock price)/GDP analysis up into two pieces:

(Stock prices) / GDP = A x B, where

A = (Stock prices) / (Smoothed earnings), and

B = (Smoothed earnings) / GDP.

Sure, A and B move over time, but the further they get from historical values, viewed over several generations, the less likely they are to stick. When both ratios are high compared to historical values, the warning lights start to flash twice as fast.

Smoothing earnings is best done using an approach like Shiller’s (that Rich also uses), employing a long term moving average. Over the long run, this kind of smoothed result is guaranteed to converge to the actual results, making it an unbiased estimate. Your approach to smoothing is interesting, but it is far too subjective to be an unbiased or otherwise reliable estimate of underlying earnings.

[patientrenter]

jp,

Enjoy your home!

As others have pointed out, there is an emotional cost to not owning a home for a very long time when all along you really want to own one. Now you won’t have that emotional cost any more. And you get lots of time to do things other than watch property prices. Time is extremely valuable.

I don’t know your purchase price, but let’s suppose that it’s $600,000, and let’s assume a worst case of a further 33% price drop that you end up realizing when you sell 10 years from now. That’s a loss of $200,000 over 10 years, or $20,000 a year. (I am assuming you choose not to walk away then. If you did, your loss might be much less.) Isn’t your time and your emotional wellbeing worth $20,000 a year?

I will miss your informed and objective househunting posts.

[Author]

Posts