[poorgradstudent]

Wait, people still get their news from the TV? Isn’t that what the internet is for?

From the fairly recent numbers I found, ~2 million people watch O’Reilly each night. ~1.5 million watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Someone mentioned Demographics, so I dug up some Nielsen numbers from 2004:

* The median age of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” 11:00 p.m.
(premiere) airing is 35, while its median income is $67,000.
* The median age of “The O’Reilly Factor” 8:00 p.m. (premiere) airing is
63, while its median income is $54,000.

* Viewers of “The Daily Show” are 78% more likely than the average adult
to have four or more years of college education.
* Viewers of “The O’Reilly Factor” are only 24% more likely than the
average adult to have four or more years of college education.

* Viewers of “The Daily Show” are 42% more likely than the average adult
to have a household income of $75,000+.
* Viewers of “The O’Reilly Factor” are only 6% more likely the average
adult to have a household income of $75,000+.

* Viewers of “The Daily Show” are 26% more likely than the average adult
to have a household income of $100,000+.
* Viewers of “The O’Reilly Factor” are only 11% more likely than the
average adult to have a household income of $100,000+.

* Viewers of “The Daily Show” are 74% more likely than the average adult
to have a household income of $75,000+ and an occupation of
“professional, owner or manager.”
* Viewers of “The O’Reilly Factor” are 15% less likely than the average
adult to have a household income of $75,000+ and an occupation of
“professional, owner or manager.”

* Viewers of “The Daily Show” are 37% more likely than the average adult
to be in a “white collar” profession.
* Viewers of “The O’Reilly Factor” are 15% less likely the average adult
to be in a “white collar” profession.

[poorgradstudent]

I think Bike Rider’s point is the people they interviewed were generally clueless about the facts of the housing bubble. Now, I’m sure if they had focused on people who were likely home buyers in the next year or two they would have gotten more educated answers. But with a “man on the street” interview you’re not looking for rigorous analysis, just to get an impression of what the “everyman” thinks.

(But yeah, watching FOX news for anything other than the entertainment of laughing at it isn’t a good idea)

[poorgradstudent]

cabinboy wrote:
“My prediction: The U.S. stock market will continue to do well over the next two quarters, unless interest rates are raised unexpectedly.”

That’s my general feeling too, although it’s a hunch as much as anything else. I’m a pretty big fan of Morningstar, who still feels the market is pretty undervalued.

I do expect a shift from growth towards value and from small to big as fears of slowdown/inflation continue sinking in. I’d point to the skyrocketing price of Coke and the Dow’s general outpacing of the other indices as pieces of evidence for that. Again, just guessing, but in the short run my guesses have been fairly good lately.

[poorgradstudent]

I’m 27, and in grad school. Should be done with my PhD in not TOO long (knock on wood). I have no roots in California.

My girlfriend is in law school. We’re putting off marriage and children, as much for personal preferences as professional and financial. Assuming I can find a decent biotech job in San Diego, between our two incomes we should easily be able to rent here. And by the time we’re ready to buy, it should be close to the bottom of the market, based on what I’ve learned from this board.

I think San Diego is a very difficult city for non-professionals or single income households. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for couples where both work, and have no or one child.

Prices will come down, and the city will become more affordable. But it likely will always be more expensive than places like Minneapolis.

[poorgradstudent]

-Market is still undervalued

-Recessions are impossible to time

-Recessions don’t mean you lose all your money

I’m not saying you should rush into the market right now. While there are individual exceptions, overall the market is very HOLD to me. I think there’s still a little gas in the tank yet. But of course, watch it closely and sell any positions that are overvalued.

[poorgradstudent]

Oil Shale is a lot like Ethanol, in that it’s competitive as a fuel source if the price of oil stays high in the long run. Those kind of energy sources do make $200/barrel (adjusted to today’s dollars, naturally) scenarios unlikely in any of our lifetimes.

I’m sure there is oil price manipulation. OPEC publicly manipulates the price, but the US also has strategic reserves. Bush’s approval rating is so closely tied to the price of gas right now that if I was him, I’d do everything I could to manipulate the price downward for the election.

That said, the Republicans are still going to lose seats in both chambers. They’re still going to keep control, but by slim margins. They’ve done a great job of gerrymandering and minimizing the number of competitive districts.

[poorgradstudent]

Could inflation prop up the real estate market?

In the doomsday scenarios some of you are predicting, where inflation could hit something like 10%, people would want to put more money into hard assets, like Gold and, well, Real Estate.

I suppose in order for that to happen the price of Gold would have to rise enough to make the currently inflated prices of real estate relatively cheap?

[poorgradstudent]

powayseller wrote:
“I don’t buy it though. Why did homebuilders go up recently? Why are some stocks trading at PE/s over 15? Why was there even a tech bubble, with stocks earning no profit trading at high prices?”

Stock prices generally project future earnings, not just current and trailing earnings (which is where the P/E value comes from). Unfortunately, accurately predicting growth and future earnings is difficult. Most stocks that trade at high P/Es have good growth potentials. The tech bubble was a combination of unrealistic growth expectations and “irrational exhuberance”.

Companies do attempt to manipulate their stock prices. I read one study (wish I could cite it) that said something like 60% of actual earnings reports beat the market estimates. From that we can conclude one of two things: Analysts are bad at their job, or companies will do what they can to “juice” the numbers and boost the stock price a bit. The fact earnings tend to skew to the positive suggests the latter is probably true.

powayseller wrote:
“We also have shorting and options and all kinds of trading which further distorts the true value, as those people treat the market like a casino table, rather than being true investors which pay for a stock what they think it is worth. They are buying only for short term holding to play small changes in the price.

Maybe markets were efficient before all the games and the before the speculators took over.

To me, the stock market does not reflect the accurate value of a company’s stock. It just shows what a bunch of speculators are willing to game it for, at this moment.”

Short term traders really only affect the short term price of stocks. Long term investors can still buy and hold the companies they feel are undervalued and are fundamentally strong.

Opportunities come when “Mr. Market” overreacts to good or bad news, or neglects a solid company or sector that doesn’t happen to be in vogue at the moment. But overall, I don’t think you will see a lot of ridiculously mispriced stocks.

[poorgradstudent]

Nice point. By and large people do tend to be blissfully unaware of larger economic trends. An agent tells them it’s a “buyer’s market”, they find they can suddenly afford the home that was out of reach 6 months ago, and they pull the trigger.

For some people having a home now is more important than getting the perfect price. It’s not a purely rational decision, but a lot of choices in life aren’t. I think some people buyng now will regret it. But if they’re looking at buying a home to live in for the next 20-30 years, and financing with a regular fixed rate mortgage, I think they’ll be ok.

[poorgradstudent]

I personally think the stock market is going to hold level for a short term, then go up again in the long run. The first half of the year the market was in a minor slump based off of investor concerns. Prices are actually somewhat low right now on a lot of good, recession resistant large companies. For a long time the market has been obsessed with growth, and neglected large value stocks.

There’s money to be made in the market even during a recession.

[poorgradstudent]

Nice to see numbers on how much Americans overspend. Although I disagree a bit with some of the specifics, I agree that Americans spend way too much and spend way too little. The WW II generation would gasp at most 20-60 year old’s financial statements if they saw them. I don’t think a “Depression” will happen, but sooner or later someone is going to pay the piper. I really hope that my generation won’t be expected to bail the Baby Boomers out.

There’s no simple answer either. Of course, on a personal level you can spend within your means, not get saddled with debt, and hope and pray the economy stays afloat enough for you to stay employed.

[poorgradstudent]

If anyone here can perfectly predict peaks, they ought to be really, really rich right now. There are a lot of really smart people on these boards, but there is no clear consensus on when the bottom will hit on the RE market. There is ALWAYS uncertainty in the future. You can rationally make good predictions, but perfectly timing peaks is a lot like getting a hole in one… possible, but really hard to do consistently.

“unlike the stock market which is nearly perfectly efficient.”

This has not been my impression. The stock market is quite efficient, but there still is a lot of irrationality. One only has to look back to the tech bubble to see that. “Hot” stocks can be overbought, sending the price skyrocketing with no real earnings/growth basis. Companies routinely are under or overpriced. Individuals will continue to make moves on “hunches” or “a hot tip” of purely anecdotal evidence.

[poorgradstudent]

I can’t imagine there’s anyone at FOX news that can give Bill Clinton a run for his money. The man is just too intelligent, too articulate, and just really knows his stuff.

Every time I see Clinton talk it I can’t help but juxtapose him and Bush, and man, it makes me sad that Clinton is done. Even if the Republicans win in ’08, I really hope there’s a shift towards true conservativism (LOW spending rather than starting wars and running record debts, belief in small government), and less pandering to the religious right.

Ok, I’ll get off my soapbox now.

[poorgradstudent]

Bugs said:
“Don’t get carried away with upgrades and options – it doesn’t pay.”

This is good advice for a lot of things. Cars, electronics… Generally you can’t go wrong only buying the features you really want, as you can often upgrade later.

[poorgradstudent]

Stock prices are based on projected future earnings, while home prices are more in the present. The stocks you listed have all fallen fairly significantly in the past 6 months, indicating the market has priced in at least some slowdown.

I agree the worst is probably behind those stocks at this point. And I’m sure they will bounce back at some point. I would need better psychic power to know exactly when though.

So yeah, homesale prices still have a long ways to fall, especially in San Diego. But homebuilder stocks may have already bottomed. I wouldn’t rush out and buy them today, but they’re worth keeping an eye on.

[Author]

Posts