[Rich Toscano]

Ah, gdcox, you give us Colonials too much credit. No, you’d like to think that Americans learned from the dot-bomb bubble only a few years prior (or that San Diegans had learned from their housing bust 10 years prior to that) but that’s not how it happened.

The vast majority of the hordes of people offering up the new paradigm arguments for real estate were American citizens. Memories appear to be very short here in the states when it comes to get rich quick schemes.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ah, gdcox, you give us Colonials too much credit. No, you’d like to think that Americans learned from the dot-bomb bubble only a few years prior (or that San Diegans had learned from their housing bust 10 years prior to that) but that’s not how it happened.

The vast majority of the hordes of people offering up the new paradigm arguments for real estate were American citizens. Memories appear to be very short here in the states when it comes to get rich quick schemes.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ah, gdcox, you give us Colonials too much credit. No, you’d like to think that Americans learned from the dot-bomb bubble only a few years prior (or that San Diegans had learned from their housing bust 10 years prior to that) but that’s not how it happened.

The vast majority of the hordes of people offering up the new paradigm arguments for real estate were American citizens. Memories appear to be very short here in the states when it comes to get rich quick schemes.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Ah, gdcox, you give us Colonials too much credit. No, you’d like to think that Americans learned from the dot-bomb bubble only a few years prior (or that San Diegans had learned from their housing bust 10 years prior to that) but that’s not how it happened.

The vast majority of the hordes of people offering up the new paradigm arguments for real estate were American citizens. Memories appear to be very short here in the states when it comes to get rich quick schemes.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Awesome as usual. Thoughts:

– This seems to be pretty in line with the overall case shiller HPI… I will remind folks that the latest CS data is for Feb, while this is all the way through April… smith’s further 6% decline fits in with what we’ve seen from median pr/sqft.

– Looks like a spring rally in the top tier, because the Feb CS is actually worse than esmith’s April value for top tier. (Though the graph only shows rallying in CV, 4$, etc). But no sign of a rally for the lower tiers.

As far as the lower tier has fallen, as of Feb is was still more overpriced (based on historical relationship with incomes) than the upper two tiers, but it went that much more nuts in the boom. At this point it may be getting back to parity, and the mid-tier may actually be below parity with the high tier.

I’ve always thought there would be a substitution effect bringing down the high tiers, but it doesn’t make sense for this to happen until the other tiers are undervalued on a historical basis compared to the high tier. This hasn’t happened yet — or maybe it’s just starting to happen now.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Awesome as usual. Thoughts:

– This seems to be pretty in line with the overall case shiller HPI… I will remind folks that the latest CS data is for Feb, while this is all the way through April… smith’s further 6% decline fits in with what we’ve seen from median pr/sqft.

– Looks like a spring rally in the top tier, because the Feb CS is actually worse than esmith’s April value for top tier. (Though the graph only shows rallying in CV, 4$, etc). But no sign of a rally for the lower tiers.

As far as the lower tier has fallen, as of Feb is was still more overpriced (based on historical relationship with incomes) than the upper two tiers, but it went that much more nuts in the boom. At this point it may be getting back to parity, and the mid-tier may actually be below parity with the high tier.

I’ve always thought there would be a substitution effect bringing down the high tiers, but it doesn’t make sense for this to happen until the other tiers are undervalued on a historical basis compared to the high tier. This hasn’t happened yet — or maybe it’s just starting to happen now.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Awesome as usual. Thoughts:

– This seems to be pretty in line with the overall case shiller HPI… I will remind folks that the latest CS data is for Feb, while this is all the way through April… smith’s further 6% decline fits in with what we’ve seen from median pr/sqft.

– Looks like a spring rally in the top tier, because the Feb CS is actually worse than esmith’s April value for top tier. (Though the graph only shows rallying in CV, 4$, etc). But no sign of a rally for the lower tiers.

As far as the lower tier has fallen, as of Feb is was still more overpriced (based on historical relationship with incomes) than the upper two tiers, but it went that much more nuts in the boom. At this point it may be getting back to parity, and the mid-tier may actually be below parity with the high tier.

I’ve always thought there would be a substitution effect bringing down the high tiers, but it doesn’t make sense for this to happen until the other tiers are undervalued on a historical basis compared to the high tier. This hasn’t happened yet — or maybe it’s just starting to happen now.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Awesome as usual. Thoughts:

– This seems to be pretty in line with the overall case shiller HPI… I will remind folks that the latest CS data is for Feb, while this is all the way through April… smith’s further 6% decline fits in with what we’ve seen from median pr/sqft.

– Looks like a spring rally in the top tier, because the Feb CS is actually worse than esmith’s April value for top tier. (Though the graph only shows rallying in CV, 4$, etc). But no sign of a rally for the lower tiers.

As far as the lower tier has fallen, as of Feb is was still more overpriced (based on historical relationship with incomes) than the upper two tiers, but it went that much more nuts in the boom. At this point it may be getting back to parity, and the mid-tier may actually be below parity with the high tier.

I’ve always thought there would be a substitution effect bringing down the high tiers, but it doesn’t make sense for this to happen until the other tiers are undervalued on a historical basis compared to the high tier. This hasn’t happened yet — or maybe it’s just starting to happen now.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

Awesome as usual. Thoughts:

– This seems to be pretty in line with the overall case shiller HPI… I will remind folks that the latest CS data is for Feb, while this is all the way through April… smith’s further 6% decline fits in with what we’ve seen from median pr/sqft.

– Looks like a spring rally in the top tier, because the Feb CS is actually worse than esmith’s April value for top tier. (Though the graph only shows rallying in CV, 4$, etc). But no sign of a rally for the lower tiers.

As far as the lower tier has fallen, as of Feb is was still more overpriced (based on historical relationship with incomes) than the upper two tiers, but it went that much more nuts in the boom. At this point it may be getting back to parity, and the mid-tier may actually be below parity with the high tier.

I’ve always thought there would be a substitution effect bringing down the high tiers, but it doesn’t make sense for this to happen until the other tiers are undervalued on a historical basis compared to the high tier. This hasn’t happened yet — or maybe it’s just starting to happen now.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

FWIW here’s what I am writing to our congresscritters. I’m actually going to use snailmail, in case my Mom is right that they take that more seriously.

—

Dear [insert name of congresscritter],

I am writing to express my extremely strong disapproval of any “bailout” for any participant in the recent housing bubble.

This includes industry bailouts such as the recent Fed backstopping of Bear Stearns’ bad mortgage debt. It also includes the Fed’s negative real interest rates, which punish savers in order to ease the housing and mortgage-related credit markets’ burdens. It also includes the Treasury plan, Hope Now, the conforming limit increase, and the current Foreclosure Prevention Act.

It’s been obvious that we in California were in a housing bubble for several years now. I myself have for years made great efforts to publicize the danger of the bubble both at San Diego’s local nonprofit news daily (http://voiceofsandiego.org) and my personal blog (http://piggington.com). I am happy to say that these resources helped many people make the prudent decision to not stretch into a house they couldn’t afford (and after all, during the boom, most buyers couldn’t afford the house they were buying by traditional measures).

Unfortunately, however, many chose to ignore the level-headed advice that many commentators were offering up, and instead chose to speculate. And they were speculators, even if they lived in the house they bought. Anyone who used an interest-only or negative amortization loan to stretch into more house than they could have otherwise afforded and simply planned to sell before the reset date – and this tactic was used by many boom-time buyers – was speculating on rising home prices. It was speculation plain and simple, and in this country, speculators are and should be rewarded for taking the right risks and punished for taking the wrong ones. Otherwise, the system breaks down entirely.

Now, the various proposals above explicitly set out to reward these speculators and to punish the prudent. They use taxpayer dollars in an attempt to increase housing demand, whether by low rates, industry subsidies, or direct subsidies to owners or potential buyers. In short, the effect of all these policies will be to keep housing unaffordable.

This is a gross injustice to those who prudently chose not to buy into an obvious speculative bubble. It’s also an injustice to savers everywhere, homeowners or not, whose hard-earned savings are being plundered to bail out the people who took huge risks both in the housing industry and among the homebuying populace. These very people – the savers – are now being asked to pay to keep homes unaffordable. It’s really quite amazing, when you think about it. And I and many, many others are fiercely opposed to such efforts.

We are counting on you to do the right thing and to allow risk takers to suffer the consequences of the risks they took – a crucial part of the capitalist system – and to allow home ownership to become affordable once again.

If you’d like to discuss this issue I would welcome the opportunity to talk further. I am at 619-xxx-xxxx.

Sincerely,

Rich Toscano

[Rich Toscano]

FWIW here’s what I am writing to our congresscritters. I’m actually going to use snailmail, in case my Mom is right that they take that more seriously.

—

Dear [insert name of congresscritter],

I am writing to express my extremely strong disapproval of any “bailout” for any participant in the recent housing bubble.

This includes industry bailouts such as the recent Fed backstopping of Bear Stearns’ bad mortgage debt. It also includes the Fed’s negative real interest rates, which punish savers in order to ease the housing and mortgage-related credit markets’ burdens. It also includes the Treasury plan, Hope Now, the conforming limit increase, and the current Foreclosure Prevention Act.

It’s been obvious that we in California were in a housing bubble for several years now. I myself have for years made great efforts to publicize the danger of the bubble both at San Diego’s local nonprofit news daily (http://voiceofsandiego.org) and my personal blog (http://piggington.com). I am happy to say that these resources helped many people make the prudent decision to not stretch into a house they couldn’t afford (and after all, during the boom, most buyers couldn’t afford the house they were buying by traditional measures).

Unfortunately, however, many chose to ignore the level-headed advice that many commentators were offering up, and instead chose to speculate. And they were speculators, even if they lived in the house they bought. Anyone who used an interest-only or negative amortization loan to stretch into more house than they could have otherwise afforded and simply planned to sell before the reset date – and this tactic was used by many boom-time buyers – was speculating on rising home prices. It was speculation plain and simple, and in this country, speculators are and should be rewarded for taking the right risks and punished for taking the wrong ones. Otherwise, the system breaks down entirely.

Now, the various proposals above explicitly set out to reward these speculators and to punish the prudent. They use taxpayer dollars in an attempt to increase housing demand, whether by low rates, industry subsidies, or direct subsidies to owners or potential buyers. In short, the effect of all these policies will be to keep housing unaffordable.

This is a gross injustice to those who prudently chose not to buy into an obvious speculative bubble. It’s also an injustice to savers everywhere, homeowners or not, whose hard-earned savings are being plundered to bail out the people who took huge risks both in the housing industry and among the homebuying populace. These very people – the savers – are now being asked to pay to keep homes unaffordable. It’s really quite amazing, when you think about it. And I and many, many others are fiercely opposed to such efforts.

We are counting on you to do the right thing and to allow risk takers to suffer the consequences of the risks they took – a crucial part of the capitalist system – and to allow home ownership to become affordable once again.

If you’d like to discuss this issue I would welcome the opportunity to talk further. I am at 619-xxx-xxxx.

Sincerely,

Rich Toscano

[Rich Toscano]

FWIW here’s what I am writing to our congresscritters. I’m actually going to use snailmail, in case my Mom is right that they take that more seriously.

—

Dear [insert name of congresscritter],

I am writing to express my extremely strong disapproval of any “bailout” for any participant in the recent housing bubble.

This includes industry bailouts such as the recent Fed backstopping of Bear Stearns’ bad mortgage debt. It also includes the Fed’s negative real interest rates, which punish savers in order to ease the housing and mortgage-related credit markets’ burdens. It also includes the Treasury plan, Hope Now, the conforming limit increase, and the current Foreclosure Prevention Act.

It’s been obvious that we in California were in a housing bubble for several years now. I myself have for years made great efforts to publicize the danger of the bubble both at San Diego’s local nonprofit news daily (http://voiceofsandiego.org) and my personal blog (http://piggington.com). I am happy to say that these resources helped many people make the prudent decision to not stretch into a house they couldn’t afford (and after all, during the boom, most buyers couldn’t afford the house they were buying by traditional measures).

Unfortunately, however, many chose to ignore the level-headed advice that many commentators were offering up, and instead chose to speculate. And they were speculators, even if they lived in the house they bought. Anyone who used an interest-only or negative amortization loan to stretch into more house than they could have otherwise afforded and simply planned to sell before the reset date – and this tactic was used by many boom-time buyers – was speculating on rising home prices. It was speculation plain and simple, and in this country, speculators are and should be rewarded for taking the right risks and punished for taking the wrong ones. Otherwise, the system breaks down entirely.

Now, the various proposals above explicitly set out to reward these speculators and to punish the prudent. They use taxpayer dollars in an attempt to increase housing demand, whether by low rates, industry subsidies, or direct subsidies to owners or potential buyers. In short, the effect of all these policies will be to keep housing unaffordable.

This is a gross injustice to those who prudently chose not to buy into an obvious speculative bubble. It’s also an injustice to savers everywhere, homeowners or not, whose hard-earned savings are being plundered to bail out the people who took huge risks both in the housing industry and among the homebuying populace. These very people – the savers – are now being asked to pay to keep homes unaffordable. It’s really quite amazing, when you think about it. And I and many, many others are fiercely opposed to such efforts.

We are counting on you to do the right thing and to allow risk takers to suffer the consequences of the risks they took – a crucial part of the capitalist system – and to allow home ownership to become affordable once again.

If you’d like to discuss this issue I would welcome the opportunity to talk further. I am at 619-xxx-xxxx.

Sincerely,

Rich Toscano

[Rich Toscano]

FWIW here’s what I am writing to our congresscritters. I’m actually going to use snailmail, in case my Mom is right that they take that more seriously.

—

Dear [insert name of congresscritter],

I am writing to express my extremely strong disapproval of any “bailout” for any participant in the recent housing bubble.

This includes industry bailouts such as the recent Fed backstopping of Bear Stearns’ bad mortgage debt. It also includes the Fed’s negative real interest rates, which punish savers in order to ease the housing and mortgage-related credit markets’ burdens. It also includes the Treasury plan, Hope Now, the conforming limit increase, and the current Foreclosure Prevention Act.

It’s been obvious that we in California were in a housing bubble for several years now. I myself have for years made great efforts to publicize the danger of the bubble both at San Diego’s local nonprofit news daily (http://voiceofsandiego.org) and my personal blog (http://piggington.com). I am happy to say that these resources helped many people make the prudent decision to not stretch into a house they couldn’t afford (and after all, during the boom, most buyers couldn’t afford the house they were buying by traditional measures).

Unfortunately, however, many chose to ignore the level-headed advice that many commentators were offering up, and instead chose to speculate. And they were speculators, even if they lived in the house they bought. Anyone who used an interest-only or negative amortization loan to stretch into more house than they could have otherwise afforded and simply planned to sell before the reset date – and this tactic was used by many boom-time buyers – was speculating on rising home prices. It was speculation plain and simple, and in this country, speculators are and should be rewarded for taking the right risks and punished for taking the wrong ones. Otherwise, the system breaks down entirely.

Now, the various proposals above explicitly set out to reward these speculators and to punish the prudent. They use taxpayer dollars in an attempt to increase housing demand, whether by low rates, industry subsidies, or direct subsidies to owners or potential buyers. In short, the effect of all these policies will be to keep housing unaffordable.

This is a gross injustice to those who prudently chose not to buy into an obvious speculative bubble. It’s also an injustice to savers everywhere, homeowners or not, whose hard-earned savings are being plundered to bail out the people who took huge risks both in the housing industry and among the homebuying populace. These very people – the savers – are now being asked to pay to keep homes unaffordable. It’s really quite amazing, when you think about it. And I and many, many others are fiercely opposed to such efforts.

We are counting on you to do the right thing and to allow risk takers to suffer the consequences of the risks they took – a crucial part of the capitalist system – and to allow home ownership to become affordable once again.

If you’d like to discuss this issue I would welcome the opportunity to talk further. I am at 619-xxx-xxxx.

Sincerely,

Rich Toscano

[Rich Toscano]

FWIW here’s what I am writing to our congresscritters. I’m actually going to use snailmail, in case my Mom is right that they take that more seriously.

—

Dear [insert name of congresscritter],

I am writing to express my extremely strong disapproval of any “bailout” for any participant in the recent housing bubble.

This includes industry bailouts such as the recent Fed backstopping of Bear Stearns’ bad mortgage debt. It also includes the Fed’s negative real interest rates, which punish savers in order to ease the housing and mortgage-related credit markets’ burdens. It also includes the Treasury plan, Hope Now, the conforming limit increase, and the current Foreclosure Prevention Act.

It’s been obvious that we in California were in a housing bubble for several years now. I myself have for years made great efforts to publicize the danger of the bubble both at San Diego’s local nonprofit news daily (http://voiceofsandiego.org) and my personal blog (http://piggington.com). I am happy to say that these resources helped many people make the prudent decision to not stretch into a house they couldn’t afford (and after all, during the boom, most buyers couldn’t afford the house they were buying by traditional measures).

Unfortunately, however, many chose to ignore the level-headed advice that many commentators were offering up, and instead chose to speculate. And they were speculators, even if they lived in the house they bought. Anyone who used an interest-only or negative amortization loan to stretch into more house than they could have otherwise afforded and simply planned to sell before the reset date – and this tactic was used by many boom-time buyers – was speculating on rising home prices. It was speculation plain and simple, and in this country, speculators are and should be rewarded for taking the right risks and punished for taking the wrong ones. Otherwise, the system breaks down entirely.

Now, the various proposals above explicitly set out to reward these speculators and to punish the prudent. They use taxpayer dollars in an attempt to increase housing demand, whether by low rates, industry subsidies, or direct subsidies to owners or potential buyers. In short, the effect of all these policies will be to keep housing unaffordable.

This is a gross injustice to those who prudently chose not to buy into an obvious speculative bubble. It’s also an injustice to savers everywhere, homeowners or not, whose hard-earned savings are being plundered to bail out the people who took huge risks both in the housing industry and among the homebuying populace. These very people – the savers – are now being asked to pay to keep homes unaffordable. It’s really quite amazing, when you think about it. And I and many, many others are fiercely opposed to such efforts.

We are counting on you to do the right thing and to allow risk takers to suffer the consequences of the risks they took – a crucial part of the capitalist system – and to allow home ownership to become affordable once again.

If you’d like to discuss this issue I would welcome the opportunity to talk further. I am at 619-xxx-xxxx.

Sincerely,

Rich Toscano

[Rich Toscano]

There is a longtime Pigg poster I highly recommend. I’m not sure if I should publish his email so go ahead and email me at rich at piggington.com and I will send his info.

Rich

[Author]

Posts