Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mick Mørmøny who wrote (87106)	8/26/2007 5:15:41 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 306849

In recent years, many families used their homes as a kind of piggy bank, borrowing against their equity and increasing their spending more rapidly than their income was rising. A recent research paper co-written by the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve said that the rise in home prices was the primary reason that consumer borrowing has soared since 2001. Now, however, that financial cushion is disappearing for many families. “We are having to start from scratch and rebuild for a down payment,” said Kenneth Schauf, who expects to lose money on a condominium in Chicago he and his wife bought in 2004 and have been trying to sell since last summer. “We figured that a home is the place to build your wealth, and now it’s going on three years and we are back to square one.” \On an inflation-adjusted basis, the national median price — the level at which half of all homes are more expensive and half are less — is not likely to return to its 2007 peak for more than a decade, according to Moody’s Economy.com, a research firm. wow. just wow.... worse than i thought initially, but makes sense so all these 'sticky' prices are going to evaporate as sellers realize they have a VERY LONG HAUL in front of them, if they are holding out for a return to previous highs... fed rate cut gonna fix this? i don't think so

To: Mick Mørmøny who wrote (87106)	9/1/2007 1:40:05 AM
From: Mick Mørmøny	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

When Bulls and Bears Act Unruly on a Seesaw Off The Charts By FLOYD NORRIS Published: September 1, 2007 Does it make sense for stock prices to plunge one day and soar the next, with little in the way of new information to explain either move? Maybe not, but it happened this week, just as it did earlier in August. It was the first time in more than four years that the American stock market experienced such wild swings, and could be a harbinger of a reversal of direction in either the stock market or the economy, or both. Or it could just show that changes in the financial system have left many investors confused about what is going on. In the past, such wild swings have sometimes indicated that markets were turning in a new direction. In retrospect, there seem to be good reasons for the turnaround. But at the time, there were also plenty of investors who believed that the prevailing trend was sure to continue and jumped in to drive prices in the old direction. Graphic In September 1974, with the economy in a severe recession and the stock market in the worst bear market since the Depression, there was a string of sharp, contradictory moves. Share prices hit bottom in early October, and a strong recovery followed. In 2000, the bull market was going strong, led by the technology stocks that had soared and made many traders feel rich. The first big reversal came in January, with prices plunging one day and recovering the next. It happened again in April, and again in October. The Internet bubble was finally deflating, and a prolonged bear market was beginning. By 2002, investors were as depressed as they had been in a generation. The 2001 recession was over, but that was not clear. A series of summer reversals signaled that a bottom was near, and was followed by more reversals in October, November and the following March. The bull market had revived. But while such reversals can signal major market moves, they can also occur when markets are stirred by changes that leave many investors simply perplexed. The 1987 crash, which seemed at the time to warn of impending recession, now appears to have been caused by a new investment strategy involving stock index futures that led to major selling after the first decline. The strategy, called portfolio insurance, decimated portfolios, but it did not reflect what was going on in the economy. Aided by quick action on the part of the Federal Reserve, the next recession was still three years away. Similarly, reversals in 1997 and 1998 came amid an Asian credit crisis, a Russian default on debt and problems with a hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, whose strategies were not as brilliant as its founders had believed. But they did not presage an end to the 1990s bull market. This year’s sharp moves have come as investors vacillated over how extensive the effects of the subprime mortgage problems will be. Those problems have led to a sharp contraction of credit markets and to difficulties for a number of hedge funds, but it is unclear if the crisis will also bring on a recession and end a bull market that has sent most stocks well above the highs they reached in 2000. To some traders, it is ridiculous to expect the entire economy to falter because of problems in the subprime mortgage market. That market is, as President Bush put it yesterday, “modest in relation to the size of our economy,” and the world economy remains strong. Others are convinced that tighter credit standards will force American consumers to curtail spending, slowing the economy and damaging corporate profits. It is from such contradictory beliefs that the wild days of August sprang. nytimes.com