Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
ParticipantTwo thoughts on this:
Since this is household income, and not individual income, perhaps we are seeing the hourglass effect because in some homes, one person works, and in other homes, two people work.
Secondly, perhaps it is the market which is driving the income, rather than the other way around. If a household stretched to buy a home, you have two people in the house working, if a household rents, they have one income.
Those stuck in the middle – those who are tired of renting but do not make enough buy a home – have left.
ParticipantPowayseller,
I must say I think it will be great if you continue to post occasionally but not constantly. I think if you post fewer times, you will naturally weed out the redundant ones and put more thought into those you post, which is a good thing.
Somewhere, someone said maybe your calling was as a reporter, and I agree. I hope your pursuits bring you in that direction.
You are an important part of this forum so I’m glad to see you aren’t bailing altogether. We can now be “recovering Piggington Addicts” together.
Let me know when you think this market is heading up.
Participant“that it’s OK to go to a state undergrad”
Sure. It is also OK to go to Ivy League undergrad.Certainly, an intense undergrad experience wasn’t for me. But, I’m not sure discouraging kids from going to great schools is the right approach.
August 28, 2006 at 9:18 PM in reply to: “A History of Home Values” graph by Robert J. Schiller #33820ParticipantDidn’t the FED change from limiting supply to controlling interest rates in the late 70s – or something like that (sorry, my macro econ isn’t that good)?
One can see how this artificial intervention de-stabilizes the market.
August 28, 2006 at 9:08 PM in reply to: “A History of Home Values” graph by Robert J. Schiller #33818ParticipantWhat an interesting picture.
Columbo’s comments about taking this with a grain of salt are important, but it is a respectable bit of work and is the best picture we have at the moment to go that far back.
There are so many ways to analyze it incorrectly, I don’t think I’ll even try.
But – I will remind you: In 1997, the US government changed how home sales were taxed, which made home ownership more valuable because one could reap more cash from a sale, after tax. I believe some increase in prices are justified at this time.
I mean, if I buy a $200,000 house in 1996, thinking it will double in value by 2006, I can expect to make a $200,000 profit. But I have to pay %25 cap gains tax, so I only make $150,000 profit, over and above the sales price.
But in 1997, I can expect to make $200,000 when I sell it in ten years. This is a 33% increase in profit.
This means I would be willing to pay more, to the tune of $233,000 to purchase it and receive the same return. This is a 33% increase in the value of the home to all buyers, based only on the tax break.
Something to think about.
Powayseller isn’t allowed to like this graph cuz Schiller is from Yale and she doesn’t buy that Ivy League Stuff.
ParticipantAn excellent answer, SDR. Thanks.
ParticipantPowayseller – just so you don’t think I always bag on you. This is an interesting post.
ParticipantThe best thing was the students I met.
This was a graduate program. Coming from a state undergrad school, I thought I was pretty smart.
Meeting them made me understand what smart and successful really meant.
ParticipantPowayseller said – “I still don’t get why it matters how many people pull off the MLS but keep their contract with their realtor, or how many listings expire just to relist?”
I agree, PS !!!
“That long listing time is completely reflected in days on market.”
Well, not when they get relisted because the days on the market resets.
I think it is better reflected in the “months of inventory” because if an expired property drops out of inventory, then comes back into inventory, this (appropriately) doesn’t affect the “months of inventory” calculation.
ParticipantSD Realtor – this is an interesting analysis, but I’m not sure if it adds a whole lot of information.
The question to ask is – Do you ever see this c/w/e – to – solds ratio indicate a bad market while number of months of inventory indicate a good market?
I mean, if the two items are directly corrrelated, one doesn’t really add any more information to the picture.
However, if one leads the other consistently, maybe you have something useful.
If you get a chance, plot them on the same plot and see.
ParticipantPerryChase –
I don’t dislike Powayseller. I think she is an excellent researcher.
ParticipantAt some point, we just have to say “I think is is 25% and you think it is 50%, lets meet up in 5 years and see.”
The horse named “Powayseller’s 50% prediction” is dead and still receiving the pummelling of its life.
August 28, 2006 at 9:34 AM in reply to: Biggest Drops in 2007 and 2008; housing will fall 50% nominal terms #33662Participant“why do you read my posts?”
To counter them so others don’t mindlessly believe everything you say just because you post more than anyone else.“He will shatter all your Delusional Dreams”
My Delusional Dreams of 25% reduction are only 5 percentage points off from yours, now that you are touting a %30 – %50 drop instead of a 50% – 60% drop.Also, in my “tired” state, I sold before you did in 2005. So, who’s sleepier.
ParticipantAt this point, I’m not mad about the prediction, just mad at how many times you post the same thing.
-
AuthorPosts
