Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-23-2008, 01:46 PM   #21
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post
my guess is $0
Good, then there shouldn't be a recession if we as a collective group have lost no money. The people who lost some will spend less, those who made some will spend more... it all evens out right? heu, I think...

Let's look at it a little more closely. Say you bought a house for 300K in 2003. And you decide to sell it at the prevalent market rate right now, say 250K. So you have lost 50K. The people buying it 250K, don't experience an immediate wealth increase of 50K. They have to wait for the RE market to recover before their wealth increases by 50K. So wealth was not merely immediately transferred from the seller to the buyer and we have a temporary negative wealth effect. Sure over the long run, it will even itself out, but not right now. Same with stock. If you sell right now your wealth takes a hit. If you buy right now, you're not richer than you were yesterday. So somebody lost money today but you will have to wait for a market recovery before getting that money back.
__________________

__________________
FIREd is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-23-2008, 02:11 PM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post
my guess is $0

for every person who is now foreclosing because they paid too much for a home is someone else who took that cash and put it in the bank after selling the home. same thing with stocks. you buy BAC at $50 and sell it at $30. you lost money, but the money didn't vanish it just now belongs to someone else.

No the money has vanished for you and everyone else as well. The only time someone would make money on the downside is the people who are short the stock. But that is usually a relatively small percentage of the stock outstanding. I
__________________

__________________
Running_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 03:15 PM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
I like twaddle, but it's EASY to be smart AFTER the fact........

Yeah, I shorted QQQ in December of 1999, and put all my clients in Treasuries...........yet here I am still working...........
Well, it is nevertheless true that Twaddle was a housing bear way before this all started, and in fact followed his own advice and got rid of an extra house he was holding. Similar moves were made by several other posters.

It is hard to realize now, but being bearish on housing while living on the West Coast was quite a feat in and of itself. Even now here in Pugetopolis many cannot bring themselves to believe that prices are headed down. I accept it intellectually but resist it emotionally, and I have much more to gain from price drops than I have to lose from gains

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 03:16 PM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running_Man View Post
No the money has vanished for you and everyone else as well. The only time someone would make money on the downside is the people who are short the stock. But that is usually a relatively small percentage of the stock outstanding. I

No the person who sold you the BofA stock at $50 is wealthier by $20 than if he had waited to sell the stock at $30. You lost $20/share but you keep him from losing $20 thus no wealth is created or lost.

Of course if you and the other BofA shareholder were twin brother traveling in a spaceship near the speed of light than time would stand still and the age of the universe would change, but no wealth would be created...:confused:
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 03:36 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
No the person who sold you the BofA stock at $50 is wealthier by $20 than if he had waited to sell the stock at $30. You lost $20/share but you keep him from losing $20 thus no wealth is created or lost.
Maybe if you have gone over to the other side. But here on earth we don't have perpetual balance sheets. If I have $2 million from stock trading, but I sold BRK years ago, is my balance sheet equity actually minus $200 million?

If so, why can I still go out and borrow agains the $2 million?

Huge amounts of wealth are wiped out when equity quotes go down. If they go back up again, that wealth is re-created. This would even be true if no trades were made. Say a nuclear bomb is exploded in London while our US markets are closed. Likely they would not open the following morning. But do you think that you could find a private buyer for your shares at anywhere near the price ahowing prior to the blast? Maybe if your shares were all armaments makers, but otherwise good luck. And do you think that this is just a temporary problem? I think it very much depends on your definition of temporary. You could run out of resources, or out of lifespan before things righted themselves.

HA
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 05:40 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Sorry it was joke, I thought the and the random special relativity reference would make it obvious.

But you may have one uped me with the nuclear bomb in London quote. pretty funny.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 06:30 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Well, it is nevertheless true that Twaddle was a housing bear way before this all started
And a broken clock is right twice a day.

It didnt take much to realize that something that goes way up, far past any reasonable value metric...will either come back down or go sideways for a long time.

In the meanwhile, I'm in the camp of thinking that very little wealth was destroyed. Some first time home buyers got tanked, as did some people who refi'd and bought toys, and some that bought way up from where they were.

Maybe a few folks who bought a new house without selling the old one in a timely manner.

I'm going to bet that since most of it was first timers and small time refi's, that only a small percentage was "loss", and its mostly on paper.

I still havent heard any explanation as to why $9B was "lost" in the 2000-2002 crash and why that didnt have any lasting effect on any aspect of the economy. In that case, I'm betting a lot more wealth actually WAS destroyed.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 07:15 PM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
I still havent heard any explanation as to why $9B was "lost" in the 2000-2002 crash and why that didnt have any lasting effect on any aspect of the economy.
Are you asking for math help? OK, first "B" means billion and "T" means trillion.

Now, you might want to figure out a few things:

1) How much the stock market really lost (clue: it wasn't $19 trillion, nor was it $9 trillion, nor was it $9 billion).

2) How much of that was owned by households as opposed to institutions and companies.

3) Once you calculate that number, you'll see how a much smaller loss led to a fairly significant recession.

4) Now try to understand how the potentially $6-7 trillion lost in housing wealth also might lead to losses in other markets, add those numbers up, and tell us what you think the effect on the economy might be.

Then we can move on to harder stuff, like division.
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 08:02 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Maybe if you have gone over to the other side. But here on earth we don't have perpetual balance sheets. If I have $2 million from stock trading, but I sold BRK years ago, is my balance sheet equity actually minus $200 million?

If so, why can I still go out and borrow agains the $2 million?

Huge amounts of wealth are wiped out when equity quotes go down. If they go back up again, that wealth is re-created. This would even be true if no trades were made. Say a nuclear bomb is exploded in London while our US markets are closed. Likely they would not open the following morning. But do you think that you could find a private buyer for your shares at anywhere near the price ahowing prior to the blast? Maybe if your shares were all armaments makers, but otherwise good luck. And do you think that this is just a temporary problem? I think it very much depends on your definition of temporary. You could run out of resources, or out of lifespan before things righted themselves.

HA

so how exactly does the money vanish?

one day idiot #1 buys Yahoo at $1000 a share and spends say $100,000 giving it genius A who sells close to the top.

Genius A now has $100,000 in the bank from that sale and keeps it there since he thinks the Naz is toast

2 years later idiot #1 finally parts with Yahoo at $10 a share and loses a lot of money.

Genius A still has the money earning 2% a year because he is thrifty.

they money idiot#1 spent on Yahoo still exists, just not in his possession.

multiply this by millions of people and wealth being concentrated in less hands than before and too many people suddenly don't have money to spend.

banks meanwhile have cut back on lending to reduce risk to Genius A's money is safe in the bank not being lent out. Once the Fed reduces rates the bank lends the money to someone and this starts to get the economy moving again by having money change hands

or to put it another way, the money the suckers spent buying up bank stocks 6 months ago when the bank bulls in that thread were saying how cheap the stocks were still exists in the CEO's pocket since it was his stock you bought after he exercised his options. Only he doesn't need to spend the $400 million he has in the bank so it just sits there and you are out a lot of money. but then again he might buy another mercedes to replace his current one. CNBC filmed him driving in to work when BAC bought the preferred stock and he might want a new retirement car
__________________
al_bundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 08:40 PM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by twaddle View Post
Are you asking for math help? OK, first "B" means billion and "T" means trillion.

Now, you might want to figure out a few things:

1) How much the stock market really lost (clue: it wasn't $19 trillion, nor was it $9 trillion, nor was it $9 billion).

2) How much of that was owned by households as opposed to institutions and companies.

3) Once you calculate that number, you'll see how a much smaller loss led to a fairly significant recession.

4) Now try to understand how the potentially $6-7 trillion lost in housing wealth also might lead to losses in other markets, add those numbers up, and tell us what you think the effect on the economy might be.

Then we can move on to harder stuff, like division.
Right, it was nine trillion lost from the nyse and nasdaq from the peak to the trough. My bad.

"As of September 24, 2002, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had lost 27% of the value it held on January 1, 2001: a total loss of 5 trillion dollars. It should be noted that the Dow Jones had already lost 9% of its peak value at the start of 2001, while the Nasdaq had lost 44%. At the March 2000 top, the sum in valuation of all NYSE-listed companies stood at $12.9 trillion, and the valuation sum of all NASDAQ-listed companies stood at $5.4 trillion, for a total market value of $18.3 trillion. The NASDAQ subsequently lost nearly 80% and the S&P 500 lost 50% to reach the October 2002 lows. The total market value of NYSE (7.2) and NASDAQ (1.8 ) companies at that time was only $9 trillion, for an overall market loss of $9.3 trillion."

As far as the rest, its amusing how the full weight and bearing of everything applies to the housing "loss" while all sorts of caveats apply to the actual market losses. :

Oh, and while you're dividing, the bust was never actually counted as a true recession, since the GDP never stopped growing. Much of the serious loss occurred not because of the nasdaq bust but rather the general malaise caused by the screwed up presidential election, the frauds at Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, AIG and others, and 9/11. That hit far more investors than the moronic late 90's internet investing gamblers that came late to the party.

Real money was lost by lots of real people. Not some faux real estate valuation that most people watched go up, come down, and end up right where it was a couple of years prior.

Of course, anyone that waited around and did nothing with their investments for 2 years in 2000-2001 was amply rewarded. I think that people who didnt do massively stupid things like buy extra homes at the peak, or buy in too high as a first timer will find very little badness happening to them by 2009-2010...
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 08:58 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
As far as the rest, its amusing how the full weight and bearing of everything applies to the housing "loss" while all sorts of caveats apply to the actual market losses. :
Ah, the "caveats" are these:

1) Consumer spending represents 70% of GDP.

2) Consumers own $21 trillion worth of houses. They own less stock. A lot less.

I guess these things don't matter. Whew -- that's a relief. Would somebody please tell the market. It's all been a terrible misunderstanding.
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:00 PM   #32
Recycles dryer sheets
barbarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 433
The enormity of the housing bubble disaster has been apparent for several years. I learned about it rather late, thanks to a few blogs, about 2 years ago after it was well under way.
The information is archived and easily accessible.

People on this blog are pilloried as "tin hats" if the introduce concepts that deviate from the comfortable fantasies so prevalent here. And posters on this blog are virtual sophisticates compared to "da little guy on da street", to whit, J6P and Jason Winecooler, who are starting to resemble pole-axed steers.

Worldwide, housing fraud is so pervasive and extensive that we are presented with the potential for a fundamental financial dislocation. There are many strengths remaining in our economy, but their ability to sustain is about to be shaken to the roots.

Other than that, have a nice day.
Love ya guys!!
__________________
barbarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:03 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Oh. My. God.

So you mean that people who sold their overpriced homes and bought other overpriced homes are just SOL? What about the people who downsized?

As soon as I see a credible source that shows actual transaction counts of homes that were bought and sold or refi'd and the cumulative actual losses, this is a bunch of smoke and poofery.

Just what you're famous for!

I'm betting the actual "losses" to be in the billions, not the trillions. Over all US homeowners and average holding periods, its practically lost in the economic noise. But what does count is when people get all worked up about what they THINK is a problem (that isnt) and react and overreact to nonexistent hoo hah.

What works is when you KNOW its hoo hah and can make money off of the sheep. Sheepherding does not, however, pay very much.

Oh shoot, I forgot...
twad·dle (twdl)
intr.v. twad·dled, twad·dling, twad·dles
To talk foolishly; prate.
n.
Foolish, trivial, or idle talk or chatter.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:09 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
cube_rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Well, it is nevertheless true that Twaddle was a housing bear way before this all started, and in fact followed his own advice and got rid of an extra house he was holding. Similar moves were made by several other posters.

It is hard to realize now, but being bearish on housing while living on the West Coast was quite a feat in and of itself. Even now here in Pugetopolis many cannot bring themselves to believe that prices are headed down. I accept it intellectually but resist it emotionally, and I have much more to gain from price drops than I have to lose from gains

Ha
I was one of those bearish defectors from the SF area. If you bought real estate pre-2001 with a 30/yr fixed, you're most likely okay, provided you did not use your property as an ATM. If you bought between 2003-2005 with no money down with an adjustable rate or used negative amortization, you're probably screwed.
__________________
fuzzy? cute?
cube_rat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:10 PM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
"Paper losses" in housing or in stocks wouldn't be so bad if most people didn't rachet up their spending and expectations based on the "paper gains"...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:13 PM   #36
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
twad·dle (twdl)
intr.v. twad·dled, twad·dling, twad·dles
To talk foolishly; prate.
n.
Foolish, trivial, or idle talk or chatter.
Thanks for that service. I knew you would compensate for the lack of math skills somehow. (Is somebody named "cute fuzzy bunny" really making fun of my username?)

FWIW, I'm not really touting my prediction-making ability. Anybody could look at the data and draw the same conclusions I did. I'm just amazed at how the "official" economic predictions have unfolded. My 2006 prediction is now mainstream, and that surprises me on several levels.
__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:20 PM   #37
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 137
barbarus - brilliant. I too don't understand the bluff and bluster with non consensus discussions here. I like to talk to people who disagree with me - sometimes I change my mind.
__________________
danm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:25 PM   #38
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 137
Here too. The house I sold is going to fund my early retirement. Those monies are up 20% YOY too - because they were placed in bearish investments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cube_rat View Post
I was one of those bearish defectors from the SF area. If you bought real estate pre-2001 with a 30/yr fixed, you're most likely okay, provided you did not use your property as an ATM. If you bought between 2003-2005 with no money down with an adjustable rate or used negative amortization, you're probably screwed.
__________________
danm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:32 PM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
I love non consensus discussions where there are actual facts involved, or even reasonable opinions. But I dont suffer fools gladly, especially the ones who have opinions with no data or where the data contradicts the opinion.

Nobody is criticizing your seer-like ability Wab. Its obvious prices went up too far too fast, just like they did in '98 and '99, and any reasonable person would have known better than to overpay for a house. Yet there is that same ridiculous mentality in RE that there is in equities, where everyone wants to overpay when prices are skyrocketing, and nobody wants to buy when everything is on sale.

The question is, what was the actual damage done. The answer is that we dont really have any flaming idea, but its most certainly not the entirety of the peak value minus the current value, just like the actual stock market losses in 2000-2002 werent peak to valley either.

My point was, the impact is probably similar. Highly emotional and minimally economic. Short term in nature and very trade-able.

I just cant figure out how the heck I bought a house in 2002 and sold it for a profit in 2007 in one of the most inflamed real estate regions in the country...and then bought a nicer bigger house with cash from all my RE profits from the last 15 years...
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 09:37 PM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
twaddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,378
Well, the problem with predictions is that the world isn't static, and markets don't have a physics. So, we really don't know what will happen.

But this isn't the first housing bubble, and many of them have fully corrected historically. Maybe it'll be different this time.

And houses are different than stocks. Home equity extraction. Speed of corrections. Share of consumer's net worth. All different.

The only place that had a bubble of similar magnitude is Japan, but Japan is different in many ways, so we won't know until we know....
__________________

__________________
twaddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What will the next bubble be? Retire Soon FIRE and Money 58 02-02-2008 06:00 AM
Iraq War Cost $1.3 Trillion to date chinaco Other topics 26 11-14-2007 10:17 PM
Isn't anyone leary of our government defaulting with our 8.5+ Trillion deficit? modhatter FIRE and Money 59 11-23-2006 10:20 AM
$1.35 Trillion Minimum Tax `Bomb' Cattusbabe Other topics 7 11-02-2006 10:27 AM
The $4.7 Trillion Pyramid Eagle43 FIRE and Money 2 06-29-2005 09:59 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:23 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.