Tar and feathers anyone?
I was going to go (kinda) nice on the little guy. No more. Lawrence Yun is a discredited hack, spewing baldfaced lies for an evil organization, and perhaps even more pathetic (is that possible) than the discredited hack that came before him, our friend The Corrupt David Lereah.
Lawrence Yun and the National Association of Realtors are today the laughingstock of America. But sadly, nobody is laughing.
Here's the latest from Yun. And keep up to date with his BS over at http://lawrenceyunwatch.blogspot.com
Consumers are hearing a lot in the media about the correction in housing, and they’re understandably concerned about whether now is a good time to get into the housing market.
To a great extent, we can thank steady media coverage of the real estate market “correction” for unfounded consumer concerns.
If there’s a correction in markets today, it’s in home sales volume and housing starts, not in home prices.
Even a relatively large price decline, such as the 12 percent drop we saw in Sarasota, Fla., cannot reasonably be called a correction when that market had a 150 percent price increase during the boom.
17 comments:
I will say this until it is a broken record, "mythical buyers!"
1. Everyone who wanted a house bought one when money was free
2. Those few of us who sold and are renting (sorry Keith, we are probably only about 5% of the American public) are not interested in "catching a falling knife" as the Wall Street saying goes (think of Pets.com at $50 a share after being $150).
3. Household formation is down (see corrupt NAR) because of McJobs by much of America.
4. Young couples who want to buy can't afford REAL loans (10-20% down and 6.7% 30 year fixed).
Bottom line - there IS no pent-up demand. . .a few speculators are rushing in to "catch the falling knife" but will be in foreclosure when prices keep going down. . .
This is going to be a long, long, long decline. . .can we say 2015??
"unfounded consumer concerns"
You wonder if he's ever attended an economics class in his life
Umm...unless it's your 300K house that declined 12% and lost 36K and probably will decline anothr 12% for a loss of 68K. Hey you lost 68 thousand dollars in 3 years... but dont worry it's not a correction. What a complete A-hole.
He should say that the record supply gives you tons of choices like never before. And the vacant houses means that you can move in immediately!
Don't worry if your new neighbors have cobwebs on mini-billboards advertising their houses. "I'm beautiful inside."
All that matters is the higher priced homes are selling to keep the median price up.
If a 12% (real 15%) decline "cannot reasonably be called a correction," does that mean that a 18% (real 15%) price increase cannot reasonably be called appreciation?
"Anonymous said...
Umm...unless it's your 300K house that declined 12% and lost 36K and probably will decline anothr 12% for a loss of 68K. Hey you lost 68 thousand dollars in 3 years... but dont worry it's not a correction. What a complete A-hole."
Can you imagine how long it would take the average American household to pay off $36k considering they already pay half their lives on credit card balances much smaller than that...
This guy must be using "fuzzy math." The trick about percentages is that a 100% increase followed by a 50% decline leaves you right back to the same price you started at. This is true even though 100 is admittedly a bigger number than 50.
So when this guy says that after a 150% increase a 12% decrease is just a drop in the bucket he expects you to say to yourself "150 BIG, 12 LITTLE, THEREFORE HOUSES GOOD" when in fact you have just erased about 60% of the previous gains! That is a good start to one hell of a correction!
I wonder why a "senior" economist can't figure this out.
-The Thinker therefore reminds you that while numbers don't like, corrupt REIC front-men certainly do.
"If there’s a correction in markets today, it’s in home sales volume and housing starts, not in home prices."
-----------------------------------
I never knew that Lawrence Yun was one of Jerry's kids.
Hmmmm . . . I wonder, what is the remedy is for falling sales volume and housing starts?
12% is not a correction ... maybe 50% will be .. not too long now ..
Right on.
Your point #4 ia really something for us to worry about in the long-term as a country.
The older baby-boom generation are now beginning to retire, and down-sizing to something smaller.
They have money and options as to how they want to live - rent, house debt again, etc.
Yet, at the same time, young couples wanting to get into a
home cannot.
This says about all there needs to be said about the future of housing in this country.
~~~
1. Everyone who wanted a house bought one when money was free
2. Those few of us who sold and are renting (sorry Keith, we are probably only about 5% of the American public) are not interested in "catching a falling knife" as the Wall Street saying goes (think of Pets.com at $50 a share after being $150).
3. Household formation is down (see corrupt NAR) because of McJobs by much of America.
4. Young couples who want to buy can't afford REAL loans (10-20% down and 6.7% 30 year fixed).
Bottom line - there IS no pent-up demand. . .a few speculators are rushing in to "catch the falling knife" but will be in foreclosure when prices keep going down. . .
This is going to be a long, long, long decline. . .can we say 2015??
Light him up and show no mercy!
The man was hired because of who he knows, and not what he knows.
Knowing that, people should just stop tuning into his BS.
The Thinker said...
This guy must be using "fuzzy math." The trick about percentages is that a 100% increase followed by a 50% decline leaves you right back to the same price you started at. This is true even though 100 is admittedly a bigger number than 50.
So when this guy says that after a 150% increase a 12% decrease is just a drop in the bucket he expects you to say to yourself "150 BIG, 12 LITTLE, THEREFORE HOUSES GOOD" when in fact you have just erased about 60% of the previous gains! That is a good start to one hell of a correction!
I wonder why a "senior" economist can't figure this out.
-The Thinker therefore reminds you that while numbers don't like, corrupt REIC front-men certainly do.
So how many Economists do you think that the NAR will go through in the next 3 years?
...or do you think Yun will ride it out until the bitter end?
Thinker, I agree except that the 12% decrease loses 20% of the 150% gains to put you at +120% (220% of nominal base)--for now.
He's like a sleazy used car salesman trying to get people to buy a Pinto
Considering how "they" teach math in schools these days, 150% increase followed by 12% decline is no biggie, you still have 138%..., or do you?
Monkey on a barrel of rum.......
gotta be a Kennedy!
Post a Comment