After the crash of 87 the market was "broken" for 18 months. Could be the same this time. Slow trade, low volatility and sideways action at best.
Printable View
After the crash of 87 the market was "broken" for 18 months. Could be the same this time. Slow trade, low volatility and sideways action at best.
I think we may be happy if it turns out to be only 18 months.
30 year mortgages are on their way to all time lows; below 5%. With rents rising (in a recession?) I think we'll see stability on a lot of levels by fall.
Gasoline prices are steady to lower. Commodity prices appear to have blown off. Look for negative inflation numbers as the year goes on.
I don't know when stability will return but I agree with the rest of what you say.( See my rant in the stimulus package thread.)Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
When you see the combo of falling equities, rapidly falling yields AND falling commoditiy prices with a flat to dropping dollar you know the shit is hitting the fan.
EDIT - I am curious how the currency flows coming back into the US from the sovereign wealth funds will effect/prevent asset deflation. What effect it will have on money supply, and if and when they will start dumping treasuries.
We are having US asset/debt deflation, while at the same time having import price inflation from the falling dollar. It will be "interesting" to know how it will balance out in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourette Dude
GBP is at $1.94. Down .13c from its high.
I'd be long dollars at this point.
See edit above.
Yea its a race to the bottom. Whoever can stick it out the longest will end up with the reserve currency status.(in the long run of course)
Should I start dropping more money into my 457 plan now that the shit has hit the floor?
I suspect a test of the low at least but this is a good time to start a dollar cost average strategy for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerman
apple has taken a HIT. december high of 200, down 24 today, then a weak earnings report and its now trading at 137 after hours....
going forward, things are going to be volatile as hell.. if you have profits right now, lock em in.
Bernake caved. (or lived up to his reputation)
Just preventing the inevitable wash out. Isn't that how we reached this point in the cycle to begin with. MORAL HAZARD.
Tech is going to get hit hard tomorrow...earnings season will most likely see electronics and e-commerce companies pull back their estimates on consumer spending fears...good times ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by steepconcrete
gee, I wonder what the Fed really sees.....
CA Sees Stunning jump in foreclosures
Carolyn Said, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
(01-22) 11:22 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Foreclosures and default notices skyrocketed to record peaks in California and the Bay Area in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to a report released Tuesday. The information was a fresh reminder that the slumping real estate market is continuing to have a serious impact on homeowners, particularly those with risky subprime mortgages.
Lenders repossessed 31,676 residences in California in the October-November-December period, according to DataQuick Information Systems, a La Jolla research firm. That was a dramatic 421.2 percent increase from 6,078 in the year-ago quarter.
In the Bay Area, foreclosures rose an equally stunning 482.5 percent to 4,573 in the fourth quarter, compared with 785 a year ago. Contra Costa County, with 1,558 foreclosures, up 533.3 percent from a year ago, had the most, followed by Alameda County with 1,026 (a 514.4 percent increase) and Solano County with 704 (up 528.6 percent).
"Foreclosure activity is closely tied to a decline in home values," DataQuick President Marshall Prentice said in a statement. "With today's depreciation, an increasing number of homeowners find themselves owing more on a property than its market value, setting the stage for default if there is mortgage payment shock, a job loss or the owner needs to move."
It was the most foreclosures since DataQuick began tracking them in 1988 and more than double the previous peak of 15,418 foreclosures in the third quarter of 1996. The fewest foreclosures recorded were in the second quarter of 2005, when 637 homes were repossessed.
Mortgage default notices, sent by lenders when homeowners are several months behind on payments, also hit record highs. Default notices are the first step of the foreclosure process.
Statewide, lenders sent 81,550 default notices, up 114.6 percent from 37,994 in the fourth quarter of 2006. It was up 12.4 percent from 72,571 in the third quarter of 2007. It was the most defaults since DataQuick began tracking them in 1992.
In the Bay Area, default notices were up 136.9 percent from a year ago, with 12,704 households receiving them. Year-to-year increases in default notices ranges from 84.4 percent in San Mateo County to 199.7 percent in Sonoma County. Contra Costa had the most notices by number, with 3,805, followed by Alameda with 2,573 and Santa Clara with 2,162.
Another gloomy statistic showed that default notices are increasingly more likely to turn into foreclosures. Homeowners can resolve defaults by catching up on their payments, refinancing or selling the house for what they owe. Only 41 percent of homeowners in default were able to pursue these solutions, DataQuick said, compared to 71 percent a year ago.
DataQuick said most of the loans that went into default in the quarter were originated beween August 2005 and August 2006, during the height of subprime loan frenzy.
The median home price in California at year end was $402,000, down from $484,000 in March, DataQuick said. However, it pointed out that much of that decline is due to a change in the types of houses sold, as fewer high-end properties changed hands after mortgage lending tightened in August.
On a loan-by-loan basis, mortgages were most likely to go into default in Merced, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties, DataQuick said. They were least likely to go into default in San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties.
E-mail Carolyn Said at csaid@sfchronicle.com.
Maybe this was posted but haven't leading economists correctly predicted 8 out of the last 5 recessions?
I know this may belong in the Real Estate Crash Thread, but I think it points to the immediate future of our economy over the next few decades. These people have been binging for 40 years, and now it's time for them to take whatever meager savings they have out of the market and slow the economy. Like this:
American house prices
Baby boom and bust
Jan 17th 2008 | ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
From The Economist print edition
The housing market has a new problem: ageing Americans
IN THE first years of the 21st century, no area of the American economy has excited more emotion than the property market. First came the excitement of soaring prices. Then spirits came crashing down with the subprime crisis, and now homeowners are agonising over how far values could fall. An even bigger story, however, may be yet to come.
America should be bracing itself for the end of the “generational housing bubble”, according to a new study by Dowell Myers and SungHo Ryu of the University of Southern California. As the country's 78m baby-boomers retire, the report argues, the housing market will change dramatically.
For three decades baby-boomers have helped push prices up: they settled down, then bought bigger houses and second homes. But as the first of them celebrate their 65th birthdays in 2011, this may change. The old sell more homes than they buy, according to data covering 1995-2000 (see chart). The ratio of old to working-age people is expected to grow by 67% over the next two decades. Will the younger generation be able to buy all the homes on the market?
Young adults make up the bulk of new demand, with most purchasing homes when they reach their early 30s. The flood of elderly people selling their homes, Mr Myers suggests, may lead to a drawn-out buyers' market. Prices may fall further as younger people, perceiving a downturn, delay purchasing.
This phenomenon will unfold differently across the country. Some states will begin the sell-off later than others. In 15 southern and western states—including the retirement magnets of Florida and Arizona—the elderly do not become net sellers until their 70s. Expensive states such as California and the cold states of the midwest and north-east are likely to lose them more quickly. The mismatch between buyers and sellers may be most acute in the rustbelt, where numbers of young people and immigrants are rising slowly, if at all, says William Frey of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank.
Of course, there may be other outcomes. Suburbs, which swelled with the baby-boomers, may begin to decline. If the building industry contracts, home prices may remain more stable. Or developers may switch to serving the old, building more compact housing near amenities. Towns may make new efforts to attract immigrants, who already accounted for 40% of the growth in homeownership between 2000 and 2006. Among these unknowns, one thing is more certain: the housing market is about to enter a long period of transition. The youngest baby-boomers will not turn 65 until 2029.
http://www.economist.com/images/20080119/CFN640.gif
In Private, Bernanke Tells Horror Stories
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washingt...r-stories.html
Is that the same thing as yes? I'm a investment jong but, seems like if I can get more of what ever it is I have for less then do it, is that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
I won't pull from retirement for another 35 to 40 years. So I would like to think that this sort of thing is irrelevant over the long hall. Home heating oil, milk and gas is a bitch but it will end soon or later.
He is saying that now is as good as time as ever to start investing. Since you are an investment jong, you would be wise to just invest as much as you can and do it regularly, every paycheck, over the next 40-50 years. Put the money in some broad ETFs and just wait. Don't do any brain damage trying to pick the bottom or the top, because you will be wrong more than you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerman
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsquared
+1 with slight modification
.
So explain to me why Apple was worth 200 a month ago and 130 today. That has to be a buying op.
This must be why. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Apple quarterly profits soar to record 1.58 billion dollars
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/techn...gscompanyapple
Think this article "nails it"!!!
http://www.236.com/news/2008/01/22/t...ked_1_3700.php
Buy on the rumor, sell on the news. Future earnings growth for Apple must not look so bright. No one can afford to eat and listen to an iPod or talk on an iPhone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Ha! You won't find too many in gov't that tell the truth. I mean, look at Greenspan. Everyone thought he was a genius. Turns out he was just an old man that was riding the coattails of a binge debt spending U.S. consumer economy. I'd love to hear Greenspans revisionist take (spin) on things now. Seeds sewn many years ago are blooming. They'll be nice in ripe by summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
wow 300 plus day
600 point turn...