Here is a little factoid from the Deutsche "analysis" that the bears love so much. I wonder how all the folks that loved this article will react to this “methodology”? "For our analysis, we calculated an affordability ratio in each MSA, and then solved for the change in home prices that would return affordability to its “equilibrium level” for that MSA. An assumption is that the housing market was... [more]
Here is a little factoid from the Deutsche "analysis" that the bears love so much. I wonder how all the folks that loved this article will react to this “methodology”?
"For our analysis, we calculated an affordability ratio in each MSA, and then solved for the change in home prices that would return affordability to its “equilibrium level” for that MSA. An assumption is that the housing market was “in equilibrium” for a 3-year period prior to 2004. Therefore the equilibrium affordability is equal to the average affordability ratio for any given MSA over the period 2000 to 2003. There is some degree of arbitrariness in selecting this period. We wanted to use a recent period, but we also wanted to eliminate the impact of aggressive lending on home prices. Post-2004 is when home prices started to diverge most strikingly, as evident by looking at the error terms in a traditional home price model. “
See chart on pg. 14
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/May08_Home_Price_Update.pdf[less]
Response by BSexposer
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1009
Member since: Oct 2008
Nice try, dude. It says 2000-03, not 2004. Besides, incomes were artificially inflated then. Next.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by JuiceMan
over 16 years ago
Posts: 3578
Member since: Aug 2007
Not my study BSex, I've already said it was a pile of crap. Your bear buddies were having orgasms over this study a couple hours ago. Do you think they have changed their mind?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by JuiceMan
over 16 years ago
Posts: 3578
Member since: Aug 2007
Where are all the equilibrium experts? Why don't they comment on this great Deutsche analysis and their comments on equilibrium? Where is steve?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
over 16 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
Wow, Juiceman is so worked up about this, he's started a THIRD thread on it. All the folks he's talking about it aren't here, because they're on the first one calling him out:
nyc10022 is desperately trying to avoid the entire conversation because he knows his data is crap. You are the only one posting over and over and over again nyc10022. Where did everyone else go?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
over 16 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
> You are the only one posting over and over and over again nyc10022
Really? So who is that guy whose posts are in between mine?
ROTFL.
Dude, are you this dense?
Go to the other thread.
Your deflection is absolutely pathetic.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 16 years ago
Posts: 9877
Member since: Mar 2009
given how much prices increased each year from 2000 to 2004, I have no idea how they could have been "in equilibrium" for more than 1 of those years.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by JuiceMan
over 16 years ago
Posts: 3578
Member since: Aug 2007
What happened to all of the equilibrium experts? Why can't the bears poke holes in this article that they love so much? Where's steve?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Trompiloco
over 16 years ago
Posts: 585
Member since: Jul 2008
Hey, JM, you illiterate idiot, what the excerpt you've just quoted says is this: "Therefore the equilibrium affordability is equal to the average affordability ratio for any given MSA over the period 2000 to 2003", meaning the average between 2000 and 2003. In Manhattan, let's say, somewhere around mid 2001. Then it goes on to say: "Post-2004 is when home prices started to diverge most strikingly", meaning that they had already began to divert and by that point anybody who wanted to see and knew how to count up to ten, but not you, of course, could see that the affordability factor had flown out of the window and that a bubble was inflating big time.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by BSexposer
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1009
Member since: Oct 2008
JM - I fear you are losing your sanity, dude, with all the frantic posts. Just relax - if you are not forced to sell your property(ies) in the near term (1-5 years), don't worry about where prices go. It's irrelevant unless you plan to buy or sell in that time frame. So just calm down, man.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by malthus
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1333
Member since: Feb 2009
I agree they should not have picked 2000-03, but a much earlier time. They were too conservative. Based on affordability alone we should have much farther to fall.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by bob420
over 16 years ago
Posts: 581
Member since: Apr 2009
Not sure why anyone one would want to own RE in NY now or ever. In 5 years it will be a ghost town.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Nice try, dude. It says 2000-03, not 2004. Besides, incomes were artificially inflated then. Next.
Not my study BSex, I've already said it was a pile of crap. Your bear buddies were having orgasms over this study a couple hours ago. Do you think they have changed their mind?
Where are all the equilibrium experts? Why don't they comment on this great Deutsche analysis and their comments on equilibrium? Where is steve?
Wow, Juiceman is so worked up about this, he's started a THIRD thread on it. All the folks he's talking about it aren't here, because they're on the first one calling him out:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/12123-oh-my-deutsche-expects-another-40-decline-in-the-new-york-msa
BTW, we have a new winner for strawman argument of the year...
"Your bear buddies were having orgasms over this study a couple hours ago."
Even the original poster checks it "Before you get all worked up yes I know the NY MSA is not the equivalanet of Manhattan"
And juiceman talks about other folks not being able to comprehend.
Come on, juice, set up another strawman you can knock down!
Noone will notice your predictions still getting even worse 2 years later.
Seriously, a THIRD thread on this?
How much does Juice want to deflect?
deflect? Answer the question nyc10022. Where did everyone go that was supporting this study?
Dude, FOURTH TIME. They're on the first thread making fun of you.
Hence me saying "they're on the first one" and me providing a link.
Seriously, are you that desparate to deflect that you're avoiding the original post?
Seriously, keep it to the one place everyone is making fun of you in clear order...
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/12123-oh-my-deutsche-expects-another-40-decline-in-the-new-york-msa
See that link thing, Juice?
Try clicking it.
Thats where the conversation is.
nyc10022 is desperately trying to avoid the entire conversation because he knows his data is crap. You are the only one posting over and over and over again nyc10022. Where did everyone else go?
> You are the only one posting over and over and over again nyc10022
Really? So who is that guy whose posts are in between mine?
ROTFL.
Dude, are you this dense?
Go to the other thread.
Your deflection is absolutely pathetic.
given how much prices increased each year from 2000 to 2004, I have no idea how they could have been "in equilibrium" for more than 1 of those years.
What happened to all of the equilibrium experts? Why can't the bears poke holes in this article that they love so much? Where's steve?
Hey, JM, you illiterate idiot, what the excerpt you've just quoted says is this: "Therefore the equilibrium affordability is equal to the average affordability ratio for any given MSA over the period 2000 to 2003", meaning the average between 2000 and 2003. In Manhattan, let's say, somewhere around mid 2001. Then it goes on to say: "Post-2004 is when home prices started to diverge most strikingly", meaning that they had already began to divert and by that point anybody who wanted to see and knew how to count up to ten, but not you, of course, could see that the affordability factor had flown out of the window and that a bubble was inflating big time.
JM - I fear you are losing your sanity, dude, with all the frantic posts. Just relax - if you are not forced to sell your property(ies) in the near term (1-5 years), don't worry about where prices go. It's irrelevant unless you plan to buy or sell in that time frame. So just calm down, man.
I agree they should not have picked 2000-03, but a much earlier time. They were too conservative. Based on affordability alone we should have much farther to fall.
Not sure why anyone one would want to own RE in NY now or ever. In 5 years it will be a ghost town.