Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 71

Thread: Housing Starts Rise 37% YoY Crushing Expectations

  1. #31
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Rogue View Post
    I think this is sound advice, buy a house when you can afford it and I might add if you need it and or want it. I don't look at a house as an investment any more than a car is an investment. I don't think i will ever get out of my house what I put into it (principal plus interest, taxes and maintenance), but performs the purpose that I had intended for it. I know some people will make a profit from real estate investments, but certainly not all. Real estate isn't the sure thing that the keynesians will have you believe, 2008 proved that, but that doesn't mean you should never buy.
    I see mine as a part of my retirement plan. Get your expenses as low as you can. Paying off the mortgage means I need less money to live on every month. Rent will never get that for you (and rents will likely continue to rise in the future).
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Any of young folks, I offer this, make sure you have a plan in place to keep up your payments if you lose a job that will be difficult to replace .
    The plan should be don't buy until you have at least a year of expenses for a back up plan...

  4. #33
    Member talkingpointes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix,Az
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Rental properties are still dirt cheap and without the hassle of taxes or another bubble. Phoenix is already on the rollercoaster again. I do flooring and have been busy the way I was back in the end of 05- into 06. Prices are up last year alone in some areas 36%. Yay..

  5. #34

    Default

    my rent is $450 and i don't live in a dump.
    hard to beat that without living in a ghetto.

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I see mine as a part of my retirement plan. Get your expenses as low as you can. Paying off the mortgage means I need less money to live on every month. Rent will never get that for you (and rents will likely continue to rise in the future).
    Property taxes, water, sewer, insurances and maintenance are rent and they will continue to rise with the rate of money printing.

    Fixed income/fixed cost is a wet dream.

  7. #36

    Default

    http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=48017

    New Home sales fell by 7.7% in December. They were predicted to go up. We’ve got the lowest mortgage rates in the history of mankind and the entire freaking country of 115 million households has only 23,000 new homes sold in December???? Even better, only 10,000 of these homes are actually completed. The rest are either under construction or not even started. Still, the guy at Calculated Risk and the rest of the MSM try to sell you on some sort of housing recovery. Does he even look at his own charts? Can anyone show me a housing recovery in that chart?

    New home sales are at the same level they were in 1981 when mortgage rates were 18% and the population was 229 million. Today we have 3.3% mortgage rates and a population of 315 million. Why are supposedly intelligent people so blind to the facts? There is no housing recovery. Artificial price increases have been created by inventory manipulation by Wall Street banks.

    http://www.census.gov/construction/n...ewressales.pdf

  8. #37
    Member KrokHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Whatever my IP address says
    Posts
    790

    Default

    I think the fact that if you have good credit you can save hundreds a month actually owning your home. A market correction is probably due but it won't be dramatic.

  9. #38
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bossobass View Post
    Property taxes, water, sewer, insurances and maintenance are rent and they will continue to rise with the rate of money printing.

    Fixed income/fixed cost is a wet dream.
    In California, they are not allowed to raise your property taxes by more than 2% in a year (thanks Prop 13!). All of those costs are included in rents too. Consider that my property taxes run a bit over $100 a month currently and compare that to renting a comparable unit in my area of about $1100 a month today. Paying off the mortgage is saving me about $1000 a month over what renting would cost. Plus I have an asset which can be sold if necessary (or desired) in the future. A renter has no such asset. Another thing is that this is an investment not in addition to what you are paying in rent but something you can get for roughly the same money as is currently paid for in rent with nothing back and no lower costs at any point in the future- money going out and giving you nothing in return (yes, a roof over your head temporarily).
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  10. #39
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Out of curiosity, have you looked at housing starts compared to say, 5 years ago? How about say 10 years ago? 15? 40?

    2012 starts - 780k down (-43%) from 5 years ago, down (-54%) from 10 years ago, down (-47%) from 15 years ago, and DOWN (-67%) from its 40 year generational peak in 1970 friggin 2!

    2007 starts - 1,355k

    2002 starts - 1,705k

    1997 starts - 1,474k

    1972 starts - 2,357k


    and of course the numbers you are citing are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED. AND why not peal back that MSM sponsored headline number?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...recovery-story

    wake me up when we reach the BOTTOM of the previous housing market down trends, then I might get excited about the possibility of a housing recovery. Till then, its no point to speak of housing being in ANYTHING BUT bull market territory.


  11. #40
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arklatex View Post
    http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=48017

    New Home sales fell by 7.7% in December. They were predicted to go up. We’ve got the lowest mortgage rates in the history of mankind and the entire freaking country of 115 million households has only 23,000 new homes sold in December???? Even better, only 10,000 of these homes are actually completed. The rest are either under construction or not even started. Still, the guy at Calculated Risk and the rest of the MSM try to sell you on some sort of housing recovery. Does he even look at his own charts? Can anyone show me a housing recovery in that chart?

    New home sales are at the same level they were in 1981 when mortgage rates were 18% and the population was 229 million. Today we have 3.3% mortgage rates and a population of 315 million. Why are supposedly intelligent people so blind to the facts? There is no housing recovery. Artificial price increases have been created by inventory manipulation by Wall Street banks.

    http://www.census.gov/construction/n...ewressales.pdf
    Should perhaps note that the seven percent decline was from the previous month and sales were still well above a year ago. For the entire year, sales were up 20% and compared to the previous December, the December 2012 figures were up 8.8%.

    Sales of new single-family houses in December 2012 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 369,000, according to
    estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    This is 7.3 percent (15.3%)* below the revised November rate of 398,000, but is 8.8 percent (24.8%)* above the
    December 2011 estimate of 339,000.

    The median sales price of new houses sold in December 2012 was $248,900; the average sales price was $304,000. The
    seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of December was 151,000. This represents a supply of 4.9
    months at the current sales rate.

    An estimated 367,000 new homes were sold in 2012. This is 19.9 percent (4.8%) above the 2011 figure of 306,000.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  12. #41
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    Out of curiosity, have you looked at housing starts compared to say, 5 years ago? How about say 10 years ago? 15? 40?

    2012 starts - 780k down (-43%) from 5 years ago, down (-54%) from 10 years ago, down (-47%) from 15 years ago, and DOWN (-67%) from its 40 year generational peak in 1970 friggin 2!

    2007 starts - 1,355k

    2002 starts - 1,705k

    1997 starts - 1,474k

    1972 starts - 2,357k


    and of course the numbers you are citing are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED. AND why not peal back that MSM sponsored headline number?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...recovery-story

    wake me up when we reach the BOTTOM of the previous housing market down trends, then I might get excited about the possibility of a housing recovery. Till then, its no point to speak of housing being in ANYTHING BUT bull market territory.
    Your chart shows that the bottom was reached and things have indeed turned back upwards. Sure things aren't back up to bubble levels, but they have been improving from their worst levels.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  13. #42
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Your chart shows that the bottom was reached and things have indeed turned back upwards. Sure things aren't back up to bubble levels, but they have been improving from their worst levels.
    I see 5 bottoms on that chart. 4 of which occurred previous to this latest bottom. ALL of which were not the TRUE bottom. In fact, if you notice that pattern in this chart, housing has been in a secular bear for the last 40 years. The pattern was broken in during the .com bubble and carried on with the housing bubble.

    Is this the true bottom?

    Things are no where even close to previous recession levels, from 1991, 1982, 1975, 1970. I'll just leave it at that.

    Yes, the trend has changed. Unfortunately trend changes in charts don't make a REAL estate recovery. This is STILL the WORSE 5 years of housing activity since most BUYERS and SELLERS have been alive. And it will be the worse 10 years, and likely the worse 20 years.

    Of course its a GREAT market for those people who are only looking at last year, but sadly, that isn't how the housing game is played.

  14. #43
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Out Of This World
    Posts
    20,817

    Default

    What would you consider a "true" bottom? It's lowest point in history ever? The best time to buy something is when everybody isn't buying. If you wait until eveyone is in, the prices are probably nearing peak again.

    The line for "average number of homes sold" has been rising in general for those past 40 years. Not everybody needs a new house (there is also more limited space to build more new houses over time).

    And every line on the chart is now trending upwards. That signifies a bottom passsing.

    From the article you linked:
    housing has improved somewhat from the post-crisis lows
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 01-26-2013 at 08:09 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  15. #44
    Member KrokHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Whatever my IP address says
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    my rent is $450 and i don't live in a dump.
    hard to beat that without living in a ghetto.
    In NY it often costs over 1100 for 1 BR to even live in the ghetto because the rents are artificially inflated by section 8. The government really hates social mobility.

  16. #45
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What would you consider a "true" bottom? It's lowest point in history ever? The best time to buy something is when everybody isn't buying. If you wait until eveyone is in, the prices are probably nearing peak again.

    The line for "average number of homes sold" has been rising in general for those past 40 years. Not everybody needs a new house (there is also more limited space to build more new houses over time).

    And every line on the chart is now trending upwards. That signifies a bottom passsing.

    From the article you linked:
    True bottom of the secular bear is when we start posting higher highs and higher lows in the primary and secondary trends. The trend before 1993-2008 was lower highs and lower lows, thus secular bear. Despite the best efforts to prop up housing from 1993-2008, market forces reverted to the longer term trend.

    Yes, this way a low point in the longer term bear market in housing, we are seeing the beginning of a cyclical bull, but we are 5 years past the pivot and barely coming off the temporary bottom. The housing cycle trends which the chart clear shows, are 10 year cycles from trough to trough (or peak to peak). As you can see, the current trough's peak was in 2005. There is your 8 years. If we have an extended cycle, at best we'll get another 2 years to the next peak around middle of 2015 some time.

    So unless you are betting on another fed run like from 1992-2005, what you are facing here is not the beginning of a new 5-8 year primary bull run (still embedded within a secular bear). No, what you are facing is a bull trap that in my view will see a quick run up to trend lows (or probably just shy), and then yet another reversion back to mean secular bear trend. So this bull is more likely a calf, that will have one good year (this year) and turn back around to the primary bear which is due historically in another year and a half.

    See the 2002 recession that never happened? Yeah, now you are gonna see the inverse of that starting in the middle of 2014 and running down past these lows and MAYBE hitting the secular bear bottom some time in 2018-2020. That is pending the resolution of the debt overhang of the currency, and unfunded liabilities, + whatever crap gets added on between now and then.

    Bottom line. Housing took way to long to start a recovery, and the cycle went right through any upturn that would print a recovery. Yes, there needs to be a recovery before a bull. We haven't recovered from these lows. We haven't recovered from the lows housing cycle of the last 40 years. Yes, the arrow is signalling up, but that just probably means look out above you cause shits still falling off the ceiling.

  17. #46
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    also, since you mentioned actual homes sold. That line looks flat to me. One thing you will notice is the compression between the index (or starts) and homes sold. Historically that compression ratio is about 50% of starts -> sold. So in this potential recovery, we can expect to see starts run away from sales. So just on data alone, looking at starts is not the best way to gauge a recovery due to the compression factor. Each of the last 3 true recoveries saw quick correction once that compression ration began exceeding 50%. That is, when too many houses were built the market naturally corrected.

    I suspect that will happen this time as well and in a very pronounced way. That is, the exuberance in new home starts will quickly fade as the actual sales lag. This I believe has the very remarkable effect of, the more crap they build, the less likely it is to be sold.

  18. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    True bottom of the secular bear is when we start posting higher highs and higher lows in the primary and secondary trends. The trend before 1993-2008 was lower highs and lower lows, thus secular bear. Despite the best efforts to prop up housing from 1993-2008, market forces reverted to the longer term trend.

    Yes, this way a low point in the longer term bear market in housing, we are seeing the beginning of a cyclical bull, but we are 5 years past the pivot and barely coming off the temporary bottom. The housing cycle trends which the chart clear shows, are 10 year cycles from trough to trough (or peak to peak). As you can see, the current trough's peak was in 2005. There is your 8 years. If we have an extended cycle, at best we'll get another 2 years to the next peak around middle of 2015 some time.

    So unless you are betting on another fed run like from 1992-2005, what you are facing here is not the beginning of a new 5-8 year primary bull run (still embedded within a secular bear). No, what you are facing is a bull trap that in my view will see a quick run up to trend lows (or probably just shy), and then yet another reversion back to mean secular bear trend. So this bull is more likely a calf, that will have one good year (this year) and turn back around to the primary bear which is due historically in another year and a half.

    See the 2002 recession that never happened? Yeah, now you are gonna see the inverse of that starting in the middle of 2014 and running down past these lows and MAYBE hitting the secular bear bottom some time in 2018-2020. That is pending the resolution of the debt overhang of the currency, and unfunded liabilities, + whatever crap gets added on between now and then.

    Bottom line. Housing took way to long to start a recovery, and the cycle went right through any upturn that would print a recovery. Yes, there needs to be a recovery before a bull. We haven't recovered from these lows. We haven't recovered from the lows housing cycle of the last 40 years. Yes, the arrow is signalling up, but that just probably means look out above you cause shits still falling off the ceiling.
    Would your advice to someone in the market for a new house around 1970 be... hold off for 50 or so years so that you can buy at the market bottom?

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    Would your advice to someone in the market for a new house around 1970 be... hold off for 50 or so years so that you can buy at the market bottom?
    With a 15 trillion budget deficit, boomers retiring, yes.

    Please, stop the out of context nonsense.
    Sign up, Log in:
    http://forums.officer.com/
    Surviving
    http://www.themodernsurvivalist.com/

    • Libertarians need to stop deluding themselves that people WANT them. They don't. They want free healthcare, free soc sec, free meds, free education,...at anyone but themselves expense.
    • Fiat Banking - Your supply of capital is limited to whatever arbitrary limit those who have limitless currency resources allow.
    • If you don't want the mafia, don't disgrace yourself by paying the mafia.

  20. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibForestPaul View Post
    With a 15 trillion budget deficit, boomers retiring, yes.

    Please, stop the out of context nonsense.
    Out of context? Like using a chart of housing starts as evidence of a nonexistent 40+ year bear market in housing prices?




  21. #50
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    Would your advice to someone in the market for a new house around 1970 be... hold off for 50 or so years so that you can buy at the market bottom?
    I am not giving that advice at all. Simply point out that anyone calling for a bottom is dead ass wrong. They would have been dead ass wrong in 1970 too. You need to keep in mind that I am not the one encouraging people to buy cause the market is at "the bottom".

    If you really want advice, I'd have a whole hell of a lot more questions to answer with you rather than just, is the market at the bottom. Consider all the people that bought houses no where near the bottom. It's pretty clear that buying at the bottom is NOT the main factor in determining how people decide to get in.

    That being said, I'd assumed this thread was for people looking to play in the market, not have a place to live. I am also assuming that people reading this thread aren't homeless AND qualified to purchase. So my advice at this point is to do what the vast majority of people are doing, and that is stay put.

    There is no reason to rush out and buy a house right now because of a blip in a chart.

  22. #51
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    Out of context? Like using a chart of housing starts as evidence of a nonexistent 40+ year bear market in housing prices?



    The chart I posted wasn't about housing prices. The thread isn't about housing prices. So yes, your charts are out of context, mine weren't.

    Looking at the charts you posted, from an investment perspective, which is the only reason to really consider housing starts, permits, etc etc, then there is never a bad time to buy right? Housing prices will go up forever right?

    It's nice that we can see even in an inflation adjusted index, prices are trending upwards. But, doncha think that might have just a wee bit to do with the insane credit and lending standards we've seen over the last 20 years? These are also initial prices, you don't see re-fi's caught up in those prices.

    You need to look at the mythical home equity values as well. These prices if adjust for how much losses or additional debt were SUBTRACTED from the initial would be going in the opposite direction.

    Remember, this isn't a cash market. If it were, you'd not see speculative housing starts lead and fall actual sales by some 50% in the exuberance times.

    Bear market in housing construction since 1970. We had a synthetic bull from 1993-2005, you might call that a break in the secular bear, but if you do, then what you are saying is we are actually at the peak of the next secular bear.

    Buy and hold.. more like buy and rent, IF you have cash or can speculate in the fixer uppers. Otherwise, again peel back the numbers in housing construction. It's not people saving up money while renting and then having a new home built that is driving this SUUUUURRRRGGGEEEEE in home construction. Nerp, it's speculative. People who see all other asset classes being overbought and need a place for their money to land.

    Oh, and employment, the real drive of lasting prices and construction (besides inflation and malinvestment) is still in the toilet.
    Last edited by newbitech; 01-27-2013 at 07:02 AM.

  23. #52

    Default

    Something I didn't see mentioned is how many of these "starts" are funded by either section 8 or other government freebies..

  24. #53
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Something I didn't see mentioned is how many of these "starts" are funded by either section 8 or other government freebies..
    post #8 mentioned. Kind of reminds me of the student loan bubble, where something like 95% of all new debt in that market is backstopped by the printing machine.

    When I think about all time low mortgage rates, government guaranteed loans, totally lax lending standards and the relentless amount of recovery propaganda being shoved down my face, I can't help but to wonder if the FED will be successful in blowing the bubble back up.

    Then I look at the charts and realize, they are starting from a much much worse place than their successful bubble blowing from 1993-2005.

    in 1993, the fed effective rate was hitting its bottom at around 3% coming off a 4 year easing stretch from nearly 10% in 1989. Fed backed mortgage rates made it to as low as 6 3/4%

    The boom proceeded in earnest with fed backed mortgage rates between 7-9% for 8 years from '93-'01 when .com collapsed. All with the back drop of a tightening policy with the fed effective rate topping out at 6.5% in late 2000.

    The next 5 years of propping up from '02-'07 saw the fed effective rate drop to a low of 1% in 2004 with fed backed mortgage rates hitting a low of 5 1/4% in middle of 2003. All was rosy and the disaster was averted.

    The fed has been in easing mode since middle of 2007 or nearly 6 years. the fed effective rate quickly went sub 1% in late 2008 and has been at sub .25% since 2009. 4 years of fed effective rate at 25 BP! fed backed Mortgage rates naturally falling from a secondary trend high of 6.5% in mid 2007 to lowest mortgage rates and history AND STILL FALLING 3.39% this MONTH in 2013.

    See a pattern here? See the 8 year cycle? See how its lower lows and lower highs?

    So we all know at some point the fed effective rate is gonna come of .16% and fed backed mortgage rates are gonna come off 3.39%.

    THE QUESTION IS, FOR HOW LONG, and WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE MARKET RECYCLES AGAIN?

    Is the fed gonna have to go into negative effective rate territory in order to force down mortgage rates to even LOWER LOWS in order to "STIMULATE" lending in housing? Will fannie mae, freddie mac, FHA etc etc... begin making NO INTEREST LOANS in order to fuel BUYING INTEREST?

    The cycle is not broken in the underlying fundamentals. The only thing that is broken is the FED response, and lenders loaning MONEY they simply DON'T HAVE, and borrowers/buyers hanging on to the feeling of the last generation that inflation adjusted house prices will always rise!

    Hello! Paradigm shift!

    Population growth rate is slowing, inflation adjusted wages are negative, cost of owning is increasing (tax, insurance, utility, repair). There is absolutely NO reason to believe that owning a home is getting cheaper or that flipping new construction is a good bet.

    There is money in housing, and its right were everyone says it is. The 4 R's. Rents/Repairs/Renovation/Remodel. All of which DO NOT REQUIRE a LOAN GUARANTEE from a BROKE ASS GOVERNMENT to pull off and profit from.

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoOneButPaul View Post
    I keep trying to tell you as someone who works in housing that almost all of this is being driven by the HUD!

    Without the HUD housing would be in the toliet.
    Without the Gov't funding the HUD it wouldn't exist.
    Without perpetual printing and debt that destroys your currency the Gov't couldn't fund the HUD.


    What part of this is hard to get?
    Ok, fair enough, but do you think those things are going away anytime soon? We may agree they should, but will they?

  26. #55
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Ok, fair enough, but do you think those things are going away anytime soon? We may agree they should, but will they?
    just real quick, i just posted a quick look at the fed effective rates and the fed back mortgage rates (fannie, freddie, FHA etc -> HUD umbrella).

    I think it's plain to see that there is nothing that HUD can do to prevent the housing market from recycling. 1993-2005 was extraordinary in terms of propping up and handing out.

    It didn't work! Oh it was nice for a stretch there from 2002-2007, or 5 years. But look now, rates at all time lows. Fed rates at basically 0. And for 4 years of this what do we see? finally an uptick in construction. Yeah, I don't think that's gonna last, and I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the numbers are more than a little fudged.

    BUT, lets say we do get another run. How far is it gonna go? AND, when the market recycles in a couple of years, like it always does, then what?

    Rates to 0%? They gonna pay people to live in these homes? Aren't they already doing that in some cases? YET, the best we get for recovery is a return to HISTORICAL LOWS? Come on!

    HUD may not be going away anytime soon, and that is tragic. But all the propping and printing in the world didn't stop the last collapse. No reason to believe it will stop the next one in probably less than 2 years.

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    just real quick, i just posted a quick look at the fed effective rates and the fed back mortgage rates (fannie, freddie, FHA etc -> HUD umbrella).

    I think it's plain to see that there is nothing that HUD can do to prevent the housing market from recycling. 1993-2005 was extraordinary in terms of propping up and handing out.
    Not even subsidizing renters can prop of the market?

  28. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wallingford, CT & Eastern Shore, VA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    The chart I posted wasn't about housing prices. The thread isn't about housing prices. So yes, your charts are out of context, mine weren't.
    Actually, it was about both prices and production right from the first page. Post #2 at the very latest.

    Here's an interesting fact:

    The average size of new single-family homes in the US increased from 1,500 square feet to 2,266 square feet between 1970 and 2000. The Census Bureau also reports that over the same time period, the average household size declined, from 3.1 people per household in 1970 to 2.6 people per household. Thus, the square feet per person have nearly doubled, from 483 to 872.
    Even pre-bubble, household size has declined despite, as Arklatex pointed out, the addition of 86,000,000 people. Excluding the recent bubble, that looks to me like the sign of a highly efficient market. Production scaled up with the first sign of demand, and immediately fell when demand was absent, resulting in relatively stable (inflation adjusted) prices.

    A chart of housing production is deceptive because, other than fires and natural disasters, it's basically cumulative. They're not like computers or light bulbs, which have a shelf life and need to be replaced every so often. Claiming there's a bear market in housing based on production is like claiming there's a bear market in gold because production is down, despite stable or rising prices. Unless you're the one actually producing the house or gold, it's not relevant to most people.

    In any case, I find your posts very difficult to read, so you can have the last word.

  29. #58
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    Actually, it was about both prices and production right from the first page. Post #2 at the very latest.

    Here's an interesting fact:



    Even pre-bubble, household size has declined despite, as Arklatex pointed out, the addition of 86,000,000 people. Excluding the recent bubble, that looks to me like the sign of a highly efficient market. Production scaled up with the first sign of demand, and immediately fell when demand was absent, resulting in relatively stable (inflation adjusted) prices.

    A chart of housing production is deceptive because, other than fires and natural disasters, it's basically cumulative. They're not like computers or light bulbs, which have a shelf life and need to be replaced every so often. Claiming there's a bear market in housing based on production is like claiming there's a bear market in gold because production is down, despite stable or rising prices. Unless you're the one actually producing the house or gold, it's not relevant to most people.

    In any case, I find your posts very difficult to read, so you can have the last word.
    except there has never been a secular bear market in gold production in at least the last century. If you don't see the difference in the two charts, i don't know what to tell you. Facts that support 40 year secular bear in housing, besides production...

    1.) "bear" market in US population growth rate... http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/b...c2010br-01.pdf
    2.) "flat" inflation adjusted wages in 4/5 since late 1960s http://www.advisorperspectives.com/d...-mean-real.gif
    3.) household credit market "bull" http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...png?1359276682

    Slowing population growth, flat inflation adjusted wages, spike in credit. You want to look at prices and tell me its a bull. I tell you prices are only bullish because credit is bullish. This is actually a very negative indicator for housing since in the last 40 years, virtually ALL increases (read appreciation) has been driven by credit expansion. No real asset appreciation, not driven by population growth, as growth rates have fallen (abortions perhaps?). Not driven by real wage increase.

    The prices simply aren't "real". And based on simple supply and demand, we see quite plainly in the cycle that demand has fallen further and further each down turn. EXCEPT when the fed basically gave houses away for free. What? You didn't get urs?

    Last edited by newbitech; 01-27-2013 at 09:56 PM.

  30. #59
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,468
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Not even subsidizing renters can prop of the market?
    their are a couple of things that will turn the market around.

    1.) a shift from debt base purchasing of real estate to labor/cash based purchasing.
    2.) population growth rate increase, either immigration or higher rates of birth
    3.) land value appreciation IE, some heretofore undiscovered resource in the sand/rock/gravel/soil the house is built on.
    4.) real economic growth

  31. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    26,019

    Default

    You need real economic growth , but then you need increases in Mnfg here in the US. Not seeing it .

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •