Warnings of a Housing Crisis (in Real Time)
Great Housing chart, from an article in the Sunday NYT:
courtesy of the NYT
>
Incidentally, not everyone was crying wolf. Some of us were adducing significant data proving the point.
Such is the life of a skeptic . . .
>
Source:
They Cried Wolf. They Were Right.
VIKAS BAJAJ
NYT, September 23, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/weekinreview/23bajaj.html
Tuesday, September 25, 2007 | 09:15 AM | Permalink
| Comments (14)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e54ee8b40c8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Warnings of a Housing Crisis (in Real Time):
Comments
This looks like Shiller's work. He put out a similar chart a year or two ago.
Posted by: Royce | Sep 25, 2007 9:54:35 AM
OT
Can someone explain why the QID (Proshares Ultrashort) is down almost 1% and the dow is off about 45???
Seen some weird shit before but that takes the cake...
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Sep 25, 2007 9:59:57 AM
I wonder what a plot of M3 on top of that would look like?
Posted by: KP | Sep 25, 2007 10:10:42 AM
MS,
Isn't the QID based on the Nasdaq?
Posted by: rudy_d | Sep 25, 2007 10:23:11 AM
yes it is however the NAS was'nt up either and that(QID) was down almost 1% with the NAS being down about .25%. The relationship is not 1:1...
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Sep 25, 2007 10:40:36 AM
and yes I know it's a double short however with the action it had it should have been up by almost 1% with the NAS down....not the way it was....
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Sep 25, 2007 10:42:11 AM
Am I wrong in thinking the chart is somewaht misleading, in that what looks like zero (i.e. the bottom of the chart) isn't really? My pre-coffee West Coast eye sees that the index now is 160, but the peak is not just 60% over the dotted "100" line? Great Lereah quotes--is the publication of books like his a great sell signal?
Posted by: David Graves | Sep 25, 2007 10:46:35 AM
MS,
QID appears to be x-dividend today, which may explain some of the apparent wierdness in price relative to the underlying.
FWIW.
Posted by: Estragon | Sep 25, 2007 11:09:50 AM
something 'aint right with it but that makes sense..sort of...LOL
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Sep 25, 2007 11:14:40 AM
Awful chart. Bottom to 100 is nearly no chart height at all, and 100 to 160 is a huge vertical space....but of course the big problem is the claim that prices have ONLY gone from somewhere around 85-90 in 1994-1995 to 160 today....that's not quite a double since 1994-1995, but out here in Calihomia I've personally seen more than a double double on housing prices since 1994 - one would think this chart (in Ca at least) should be well over 320. Realty meet Reality.
Posted by: KnotRP | Sep 25, 2007 12:20:10 PM
The chart would be more useful if it showed the longer term trendline
Posted by: Bob A | Sep 25, 2007 12:41:39 PM
Perhaps the chart, which is based on inflation adjustment, is skewed due to 'underreporting' of inflation. Assume 6% instead of 3%, and that peak of 171 would be much lower.
Posted by: Eddie | Sep 25, 2007 3:29:08 PM
When they say "adjusted for inflation" are they talking about real inflation measure or that flat line called the CPI?
I think if you adjusted it for real inflation in commodities and food, energy, health care, etc. you might find the big rise is not as steep.
Posted by: limejuice | Sep 25, 2007 3:50:43 PM
"Real Inflation"?
In a spin-dominated world?
Not a chance!
Francois
Posted by: Francois Theberge | Sep 26, 2007 12:15:15 PM
