Reply to This must be some sort of housing bubble again

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "This must be some sort of housing bubble again"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]DC is immune to housing bubbles. So no, sorry OP - this is not a housing bubble. Good luck.[/quote]

This time is different! I love the hubris here... everyplace things its immune and everyone else is a bubble.  You know, all the kids are above average in DCPS![/quote]

It feels somehow comforting to me that we still have such slow thinkers in DC. Did you not see the post from the person who bought in the district 15 years ago? Look at the DC real estate prices 20 years ago. You don't wish you could go back and take that deal? DC is not the rest of the country. Show me which DC neighborhood people bought into fifteen, ten, five years ago and are now feeling totally burned because they overpaid and wouldn't now be able to sell their home for what they paid. [/quote]

Sigh. The last fifteen years coincides with the capital gains exclusion and the repeal of glass-stegal. NY, Boston, SF, Phoenix have all seen massive real estate rise and gentrification over this period.

But yes, I see now that DC is truly Paris on the Potomac, rats and all. [/quote]

What does Paris have to do with it? DC could be the ugliest city in the country; it is nevertheless going to continue to get more expensive over the long haul.

Also, comparing DC to Phoenix suggests you on't know what you're talking about. You sound bitter. Sorry you missed out. [/quote]

The completely irrelevant reference to the repeal of Glass-Steagal is even better. Thrown out there to sound semi informed, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Besides, GLB marked the end of the gradual repeal of GS. It really signifies the perhaps begrudging acceptance by federal regulators of the effect of incremental changes they'd permitted to financial regulation. I've said it before and I'll say it again, another instance of "sound and fury, signifying nothing." [/quote]

[b]Dude, the involvement of investment banks in the mortgage market is a root cause in the credit and housing bubble. Completely relevant but go ahead and keep your blinders on. You probably blame the CRA?[/b]

As for Phoenix vs DC, my point was basically any urban area save Detroit purchased in 90s would have amazing returns. DC did
Not wobble like other markets (which dipped until QE flew in) b/c of the war on terrorism etc. but that phase of spending is winding down, and the appeal of DC is limited since it has high cost rents, expensive buereucratic workforce (look at the drek software put out by government contractors), so without huge Federal coffers why would DC appreciate or even hold this high value.

DC is a great company town and if housing was more reasonable would be a great source of highly educated but procedural businesses like accounting or tax law. But true innovation does not happen here, and all it's wealth is from siphoning off external wealth seeking influence.

BTW, the Fed voted unanimously yesterday to continue taper despite lackluster jobs and new home starts. They see the bubble. [/quote]

No, I do not blame the CRA.

But you speak of Gramm-Leach-Bliley as if it was some bellwether event. It wasn't. It was the slow recognition that regulatory decisions from the mid-80s had slowly repealed GS "in effect." Starting with Greenspan, the Fed began granting exemptions to GS (and other financial regulations) as an almost procedural matter. GLB, which to people largely unfamiliar with the history of financial regulation signals the repeal of GS, was merely the recognition that policymakers had already decided to "adjust" GS in light of changes in financial services organization and provision. In particular, the approval (at first temporary) of Travelers-Citi was the straw that broke the camel's (no pun intended for those in the know) back. By the time this merger was approved, GS was already long gone. And then came GLB.

You can make a claim that the securitization of mortgage-backed debt was the impetus for the run-up in housing prices. That's a reasonable debate, but it is somewhat orthogonal to GLB, since the [b]creation [/b]of a market for MBS did not depend on the "involvement of investment banks." (The investment banks' role was to create derivatives that mutual funds and insurance funds could invest in, per their covenants. This grew the market, but I'm not prepared to say this wouldn't have happened anyway. Moreover, it is not immediately clear to me that other financial firms couldn't (and wouldn't) have performed this service, or even that investment banks couldn't have done it themselves under a fully-functioning GS.)

At least you got the "dude" part right. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics