(BPOking's post is quoted in full at the end of my comments; BPOking
always loves to talk about the negatives of the US economy without
acknowledging the positives. So lets just look at a few. WSJ, May 9,
2008, page A2: "US Jobless Claims Fell in Latest Week" (not that I'm
that impressed with govt stats, but this is anything but a cra****ng
economy). Front page and more on page A2 about inflation: Half of
economists in poll say that inflation is being driven by demand from
China/India (so all you guys can blame China and India for all of the
world's inflation woes, and those woes are amplified in another
article on page A9: "Inflation Concerns Keep Europe's Rates on Hold"
and the graphic shows inflation all over Asia two to three times
higher than US, Euro, and Japan. Now, lets look on page B2: "U.S.
Retail Sales Rose in April" *yeah, last month, sales went higher. Sure
does not look like a cra****ng economy to me (BPOking and "ather" and
others who can't see the forest for the trees, probably can't think,
either). Now lets look on page C2 and first page of "C" section for
the headline "The financial crisis is '75-85% done,' says Dimon of
J.P. Morgan Chase" (sure does not look like an economy in a crash to
me). Also on page C1 is this article "Trade Deficit May Extend Its
Shrinking" and the graphic shows the monthly trade deficit for the
last 1-2 years going down, long term. Sure does not look like a
cra****ng economy to me.
So, why are these guys dancing in the streets over a small number of
relatively minor problems in the US and totally ignoring the positive
news? Are they mentally unbalanced? Or, incompetant? Or, just backing
up their prejudice and bias with propaganda?
================
On May 10, 5:59 pm, indiaBPOking <indiabpok...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/29/MNK810DNI...
>
> James Temple, Chronicle Staff Writer
>
> Wednesday, April 30, 2008
>
> Low-priced homes led plunge. Chronicle Graphic The U.S. housing slump,
> as reflected by these signs on a ...
>
> (04-29) 10:11 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Like a brick falling from the top
> of the Transamerica Pyramid, national and local home prices are
> rapidly accelerating on their way down, cru****ng hopes of an imminent
> turnaround.
>
> The cost of a typical Bay Area home plunged 17.2 percent year-over-
> year in February, compared with 13.2 percent in January and 10.8 in
> December, according to an index of real estate values published by New
> York credit rating agency Standard & Poor's. Across the nation, the
> S&P/Case-****ller 10-City Composite index covering major U.S. markets
> followed a similar trajectory, falling 13.6 percent in February, 11.4
> percent in January and 9.8 percent in December. On a month-over-month
> basis, the national numbers have fallen or stayed the same for at
> least the last six months.
>
> The indexes represent the overall price trend in specific metropolitan
> areas. Many of the cities or neighborhoods within these regions
> performed far better or far worse. San Francisco, for instance, eked
> out a median price increase in March, but the rare positive examples
> were more than offset by the tumbling values in outlying areas, like
> eastern Contra Costa County.
>
> Decreases tend to slow before stopping, so the quickening pace of
> these broader price declines suggests the bottom of the market remains
> far off, industry observers say.
>
> "Prices have a lot of room to fall," said Patrick New****t, an
> economist with Waltham, Mass., research firm Global Insight Inc. "We
> could see some really big drops."
> Further decline expected
>
> Coupled with a Census Bureau re****t on Sunday that found the inventory
> of vacant and for-sale homes rose to an all-time record of 2.9
> percent, the S&P/Case-****ller study means U.S. home values will
> decline by at least an additional 10 percent and possibly by much
> more, New****t said.
>
> It's a stark *****sment for a housing market that already has been
> unraveling for two years, sending national and local prices down 16
> percent and 25 percent from their peaks so far. The slowdown morphed
> into a meltdown last summer as resetting mortgages and falling home
> values brought waves of defaults and foreclosures and an international
> liquidity crisis.
>
> Seventeen of the 20 major metropolitan areas tracked by S&P/ Case-
> ****ller posted the biggest annual declines in at least 18 years, as
> far back as the data goes. Las Vegas, Miami and Phoenix re****ted the
> steepest drops, 22.8 percent, 21.7 percent and 20.8 percent,
> respectively.
>
> The San Francisco region, which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
> San Francisco and San Mateo counties, saw the sixth highest annual
> drop and the biggest month-over-month decline, 5 percent.
> Connection to other areas
>
> Stephen Levy, senior economist at the Center for Continuing Study of
> the California Economy in Palo Alto, said the early, enormous price
> declines in areas like Stockton and Fresno are filtering into the Bay
> Area.
>
> "Even though we don't have the high foreclosure rates, housing is a
> market and prices here are connected to prices in adjoining areas," he
> said.
>
> Another major factor driving down local prices is financing, he said.
> Tightening lending standards and larger required down payments are
> inhibiting people's ability to afford the region's high-priced homes.
>
> Michael Carney, director of the Real Estate Research Council of
> Northern California, said he was "shocked" that the Bay Area number
> fell as far as it did, but echoed New****t in saying the accelerating
> decline means the worst is to come.
>
> The regional trend is skewed by the outer areas, such as Antioch and
> Pittsburg, where there are high levels of foreclosures and prices
> declining by as much as 25 percent, said Ken Rosen, chairman of the
> Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics at UC Berkeley.
> Prices in the core of the Bay Area, including San Francisco, Silicon
> Valley and Marin, are down 6 percent at most, he said.
> Examples of variation
>
> S&P/Case-****ller does acknowledge this variation, noting that low-
> priced homes, which saw the biggest run-up since 2000 and tend to be
> located in the exurbs, have fared the worst in the downturn.
> Properties priced below $513,218 plummeted about 33 percent since
> February 2006. In contrast, medium-priced houses, between $513,218 and
> $756,420, declined 22 percent while high-priced homes, above $756,420,
> fell just 6.8 percent.
>
> "The low-price homes tend to be where there's more speculation and
> dubious mortgages," said David Blitzer, chairman of Standard & Poor's
> index committee. "The farther they went up, the harder they fell."
>
> S&P/Case-****ller assigned each metropolitan area it tracks a base
> value of 100 as of January 2000. That figure fluctuates with market
> value, so an index of 150 translates to 50 percent real dollar price
> appreciation.
>
> The San Francisco index was at 174.54 in February, meaning despite the
> recent turmoil, values are up nearly 75 percent from eight years ago.
>
> Many real estate experts consider the S&P/Case-****ller indexes and
> others like them more accurate gauges of real estate trends than the
> median price approach used by other groups. Because they track the
> value only of homes that have traded hands at least twice, the indexes
> chart the actual increase or decrease in specific homes. Median
> surveys compare prices for homes sold in one month to an entirely
> different set sold in the next, meaning they can be artificially
> distorted when a higher pro****tion of homes sell in the lower- or
> higher-priced tier in a given period.
|
