Please post your local house search updates, MLS finds, on-topic ideas, and links here.
Calculated Risk has a comprehensive Government Housing Support Update.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Northern Virginia Bits Bucket 3/31/2010
Posted by Harriet at 8:34 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Harriet,
The link doesn't work.
You know the announcement about the new mortgage modifications that could come about in September?
I think what that's actually all about is constricting supply this spring. Think about it. Banks are being promised actual money from TARP for the portion of forgiven debt OVER 100% LTV. That's money they stand no chance of recovering in short sales or foreclosure. The government is essentially saying. Hold off! Wait if you can! If the home-owner can just stay in the house for a few more months we'll reward you with CASH for not foreclosing on them now.
This, this is their solution to the spring market. Our tsnuami which was supposed to arrive, has been held back and spread out again. Did anyone really think it would be otherwise?
If this really holds off foreclosures by incentivizing banks to keep delinquent homeowners in their homes, then I don't see what is going to come along to make prices drop this spring.
Obviously the trickle will continue, there's some rate at which it must. But that's not enough around here.
Cara-
I agree the government is going to do their best to spread the shadow inventory over the next several years. Obama knows he has been in office long enough that if housing prices start going down again he will be blamed.
cara said
If this really holds off foreclosures by incentivizing banks to keep delinquent homeowners in their homes, then I don't see what is going to come along to make prices drop this spring.
If interest rates rise substantially the next few months that will lower spring prices. If rates remain in the 5% range we are probably looking at more flatness this spring.
tbw,
If interest rates rise substantially the next few months that will lower spring prices. If rates remain in the 5% range we are probably looking at more flatness this spring.
Indeed. I'm in the camp that thinks that interest rates won't rise very much in reaction to the ending of the MBS purchase program. I think the tapering off was gradual enough, that the rise would have already started if it were going to be substantial.
I think some of the current buying activity is resulting from buyers' concern about rising interest rates ("get in now!"). As we all know, they may be better off not to buy at lower rates, but that belief is not shared by all buyers. If the expectation of higher rates increases, I think we'll see a temporary upward spike in buying activity and bidding up prices on the best valued properties, but then a rapid return to a somewhat lower level of sales activity.
Ace,
Showed an apt to a propective tenant couple yesterday. They just sold their long-time home in Vienna/Oakton. Husband expressed complete shock at the number of buyers and quick sale.
They need a rental for two years while building on a lake south of here. Way too picky and my age! Wanted a lease 7 wks out (fat chance). I rented it later in the day for May 1.
Va_investor,
Was it a vacant apartment?
They haven't been in the rental market for a long time. Norms vary by region for the lead time needed to land a rental. In NJ 2 months was required. You couldn't find anything quicker than that for love or money. Around here it seems best to wait until as late as you can stomach and get something that's already vacant.
So they may just not have been in with the "culture" (for lack of a better word). Unless it was vacant, in which case they're not using their heads.
Ace,
I definitely think there's some of that. Just as I think the low interest rates themselves are more important to the SFH market in NoVa than the $8k is, I think the opportunity to get low interest rates has been a driver and fear of them rising has been/will be a driver of sales as well.
Hard to tease out from data, but definitely a factor.
VA-
I think it all depends on price. If there were willing to set the price near the market it would sell quickly. The problem is that many/mots people think prices are only down ~5% from peak. Houses listed at these prices just don't sell or take very long time.
quick short sale opportunity alert:
http://franklymls.com/FX7250996
$370k bank approved price.
Was on the market a very short time before going under contract before.
It's a 1590 above ground square foot (gmph) colonial, so another 230 sq feet bigger than most comps above ground. Not a bad location.
So, $370k may seem high for a short but if it's in decent shape it is actually a good deal because it's bigger.
Now it's possible that the LA's remarks section may be old, or something else terribly wrong, but if I were still in the market I'd be calling Jeff today to check it out tonight.
Oh, and a new comment added to one who's finally dropped price:
http://franklymls.com/FX7269655
dropped to $369k,
"NEED TO SETTLE BEFORE 4/30/2010!!!!!"
use this brand spanking new comp in your bargaining:
http://franklymls.com/FX7251573
closed 3/22/2010 for a net of $364k.
cara,
Today is the last day of the MBS program. I am not expecting to see things dramatically higher in April. Indeed, I sort of hope they do not because I think that would cause the Fed to freak out and create a new MBS program. I'm hoping we gradually go up to 5.5% over the next 3-6 months and then 6% the following 3-6 months without causing the Fed and others to bankrupt our country creating another misguided trillion dollar plus MBS program.
A 30 year fixed mortgage at 5% for $500k has a monthly payment of $2,684.11. At 6% it goes up to $2,997.75. Even in crazy land like here where we might see higher median HH income we will not see it rise enough to make that palatable. I think prices will go down.
Ace,
Agreed. I have many friends who bought because of the low interest rates thinking it would lead to the deal of a lifetime instead of just being baked into the price.
I just wanted to note something from yesterday's unemployment discussion. CRT and Robert argued that our rates up here are dramatically lower than the rest of the state. For example CRT said: These are the lowest rates in the State by a longshot.
To be clear they are higher elsewhere in the state but it's not like they have Vegas, CA, or FL type unemployment numbers down there. The suburbs of Richmond (Hanover, Chesterfield), Virginia Beach, college towns like Charlottesvile or Harrisonburg are all within 1% or so of Prince William County's unemployment rate.
All in all Virginia's population centers are doing relatively well compared to the country during the recession. Let's not obfuscate that. I feel like some want to imply we are doing much better than we are because Richmond and Hampton Roads did not have insane home appreciation despite also having low unemployment.
tbw,
I know today's the last day (or rather I knew it was sometime this weekish) but they've been tapering down for some time now, and were yesterday a much smaller percentage of the buyer market than they were at the start of the MBS purchase run. Thus why I think the creep would already have started.
But overall our numerical expectations aren't THAT different. I think we could easily reach 5.25 within 3-6 months. and then 5.5-5.75 within the year. But I think will be accompanied with some actual modest GDP growth and some tiny inflation.
A $500k loan is jumbo anyway, so doesn't get 5% now.
I think a lot of people do have the money to put in as DPs and are chosing not to do so with as large of a chunk right now because borrowing money is so cheap. So the first switch will be towards slightly more money down from those who can.
The hope has been that if you have the money saved up you'll have more buying power when rates rise. But that's only true if your competition doesn't also have those funds.
For people who feel they can afford $600k homes ($500k mortgages) I'm not sure that's the case.
And for people buying much less expensive houses, going from 5 to 5.5% isn't as large of a payment shock...
I just keep coming back to the fact that the price/interest rate relationship has never played out the way you say it will this time. Which makes me doubt it will now. I understand the logic, it's very straightforward, and I can even see why this environment might be uniquely suited to bring out the relationship when it's been drowned out before, but until we see it happen, I'm a doubter.
Cara-
I agree it isn't clear the relationship will hold, seeing that it hasn't in the past. I think the difference is in the past inflation was very high(5-15%) when rates rose fso this hid the real decline. If inflation stays in the 0-2% rates could still rise to 7% and inflation would not be able to help control the correction. I agree that the relationship will not be 1-1 because there is a lot of price stickiness in housing.
TBW-
Not only is the rest of the state pretty good. The total unemployment is only part of the picture. The change of unemployment is also important, because this dictates how many people can no longer afford their houses. A state going from 7-10% unemployment may not have significantly more distressed properties than a state going from 2%-5% unemployment.
"To be clear they are higher elsewhere in the state but it's not like they have Vegas, CA, or FL type unemployment numbers down there. The suburbs of Richmond (Hanover, Chesterfield), Virginia Beach, college towns like Charlottesvile or Harrisonburg are all within 1% or so of Prince William County's unemployment rate."
Fair enough, TBW. To clarify, when I said lowest by a longshot, I was not referring to other suburban counties of Richmond & VA beach which are roughly 1-3 percentage points higher than PWC.
What I was thinking of was the vast, relatively rural areas downstate that get incorporated into the single "VA Unemployment" that we see every month.
Just so you know, there are a number of counties in VA that do have Vegas/CA unemployment numbers. By my last count there are over 40 counties in VA that have double digit unemployment rates - as well as a score of places just under double digits. These were the areas I was thinking of.
Also, its not just that they are a shade over 10% mind you. Its not uncommon to see 12% 14% or worse unemployment in these areas. The worst offender seems to be Martinsville city at 21.6% unemployment (over 4X as bad as our area).
To be sure, these 43 areas are pretty rural, and thus sparsely populated. However taken together (as per the VA unemployment number) they are formidable and constitute a large chunk of the single monthly number we see. What I was trying to convey was that compared to these areas, its like we here in N. VA are living on another planet.
"its like we here in N. VA are living on another planet."
I have slowly come to this realization in MANY areas of life...
Well, hopefully the end of this
$8k program will help prices decline, but really how much would they? It seems as though the demand here is so huge, at least in the market/price range I am looking that places aren't even on the market long enough for us to go see them a week from listing :(
FWIW, in March, one house in Mantua went under contract the same day it was listed. Another within 10 days. But some houses that need renovation are languishing for over a month.
"Well, hopefully the end of this
$8k program will help prices decline, but really how much would they? It seems as though the demand here is so huge, at least in the market/price range I am looking that places aren't even on the market long enough for us to go see them a week from listing :("
I do think there will be a bit of softness, not so much from the end of the 8K program, but because, finally, inventory is actually coming out in reasonable numbers as more and more homeowners feel the worst of it is over and its now safe to list again.
As to whether we ever hit the spring 2009 bottom again is debatable, however, we very well could give back half of the gains we have gotten since then. We shall see.
cara said
A $500k loan is jumbo anyway, so doesn't get 5% now.
I thought in select metro areas like DC you could get the conforming rate up to $729k or something like that? I recall there was a time where there was a conforming rate, jumbo conforming rate, and a jumbo rate. But I though the federal government got banks to charge the conforming rate to "jumbo conforming" by making clear those mortgages were fully insured. Is that wrong?
I just keep coming back to the fact that the price/interest rate relationship has never played out the way you say it will this time.
If we had assumable loans and wages were destined to go up between 2010-15 as much as they did between 1980-85 then I would agree with you. Why expect anything different. However, assumable loans are only with FHA now and not with private loans and I sincerely doubt wages will grow x% like they did in the early 80s.
Ffx 1979 - $30,000
Ffx 1985 - $49,700
Growth +66%
Ffx 2009 - $106,785
66% wage growth would require this
Ffx 2015 - $177,263
Surely you do not predict that. Even if we adjust the wage growth needed downward since rates are unlikely to increase as much as they did between the late 1970s and early 1980s we still would likely need a ridiculously high wage growth.
I should say too, the reappearance of inventory should not necessarily be seen as a sign of trouble. In every bottoming throughout history, part of the reason we got there is discretionary homeowners choose not to list, helping to drive inventory down.
Then, after they feel the bottom has been hit, some who wanted to sell, return and test the waters. If they are right, they will sell, and prices will slowly rise. If they are wrong, they will (as a group) go back into hiding, only to reappear once again as they think its safe, either next year, or the year after, or so on.
This process of listing, pulling, and relisting again has been a central tenant of every bottom in real estate, and I dont expect this one to be any different.
CRT said
What I was thinking of was the vast, relatively rural areas downstate that get incorporated into the single "VA Unemployment" that we see every month.
...
To be sure, these 43 areas are pretty rural, and thus sparsely populated. However taken together (as per the VA unemployment number) they are formidable and constitute a large chunk of the single monthly number we see. What I was trying to convey was that compared to these areas, its like we here in N. VA are living on another planet.
Yes many parts of Virginia are metaphorically speaking "on another planet." Many parts of SW VA are still very rural. But it's easy to get carried away with the whole Northern Virginia vs. rest of state thing. As someone who has traveled to the Richmond area, SE VA, a few of the college towns, Roanoke, etc I can tell you that there is a lot of similarity among those areas of the state. The vast majority of the state is familiar with malls, suburbia, office parks, etc. We have a couple extra things up here by being near the nation's capital but I don't think it would be all that much culture shock to move from Fairfax County to the Richmond suburbs or SE VA.
CRT,
Since you are good at finding stats maybe you can help find the 18-35 unemployment rate in Northern Virginia. I know the WaPo has said it's much higher in the lower age range (particularly the fresh out of college age range.) Housing is very dependent on the "young adult" age range since they are the ones forming new households, becoming first time homebuyers, and so on.
TBW - Again, I agree that areas like Richmond, S.E.VA, charlottesville, possibly roanoke, lexington, etc would seem similar to this area.
My another planet comment came from the vast, inincorporated areas in S.W. & S Central Va (which incidentally remind me more of my upbringing than does this area).
As to unemployment I have not seen it broken down by just age, but I have seen it broken down by education.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/S5UkLdAl0eI/AAAAAAAAHtQ/a4ItZ6m9UcM/s1600-h/UnemploymentEducation.jpg
Basically, the college educated and above are only 1/3 as likely to be unemployed as those who didnt finish high school.
TBW, I know I am beating my head against the wall, but I've pointed out numerous times the the total number of jobs is the more relevant figure - down 1% - than the unemployment rate...when it comes to home prices.
Another point that I've made about employment several times that is lost in the numbers is the change in the mix of jobs - fewer retail and construction and more in health care, education, and government.
I'm not sure where you get the 18-35 number, but if you are really sincere about analysis, I think you would be looking at something like 25-35.
Some days I wonder if I'm being bearish longer than I should be. Then I come home and there's a real estate ad (we get these particularly in the spring in every managed building I've lived in the DC area). Today this one encourages us to work with this realtor's preferred lender -- who still offers 100% loans. Ugh. Naturally this mortgage company is based in Woodbridge, VA.
I feel like I should be able to report this to someone but I would guess they are still not violating the law even after TARP and the million other programs designed to clean up the mess these 100% loans created.
Robert,
Don't worry, I'd prefer 25-35. I was just guessing what age range any study might offer.
CRT said - "Then, after they feel the bottom has been hit, some who wanted to sell, return and test the waters. If they are right, they will sell, and prices will slowly rise."
Sounds logical - except your huge assumption - "bottom has been hit". The process can reverse itself (downward spiral) when you mirror it backwards...
spider, it's possible for the market to go lower after the 8k credit is gone. The government was very wise to end the credit during the spring instead of ending it during the fall when less buyers are generally out anyway.
tbw
It's not just in DC that your relationship has never happened. It's everywhere. No where in the whole world. Not in New Zealand, not in Australia, not in England. Any time data has been trotted out it has shown that at worst prices decline in a real sense when interest rates rise, but never in a nominal sense. Not in a correlated fashion.
This is not just a local thing. This is as far as any data has shown, the way the world works. The whole world doesn't have the same loan terms. Yet, Spain had a housing bubble, most places in fact did. And no where has anyone been able to bring out data showing nominal price declines in rising interest environments. The best has been the Seattle Bubble Blog which found some real price declines during rising interest rate environments.
So basically I don't see why you think loan assumption and gigantic wage growth are necessary conditions to undo your infallible logical argument for why things "should" fall. They haven't fallen in the past. That's enough for me.
The best reasons explaining what has actually occurred are that high interest rates generally accompany inflation, and that housing has extreme price stickiness. I don't think you need me to beleaguer these explanations, because I'm pretty sure you understand them. And for me anyway, if you don't trust what a world's worth of data has to say on the subject, I don't see what a better theoretical(*) explanation will win for you. I can try if you'd like to hear it though.
(*) calling my own musings "theory" is inappropriately bold, but I didn't have a better word.
If this time around, housing does continue down nominally when interest rates do pick up, then many will say that it was just an unavoidable continuation of the foreclosure crisis, but I'll be with you in saying that we finally have a detectable signal from the effect that everyone's common sense says should happen. It will be hard to separate the two, and in truth they will be working in conjunction. The higher interest rates in limiting buyer bids, and the REO stream in providing the visible weakness in the market.
tbw,
Okay I lied, I'll try to give the counter explanation one more time, before being asked.
1) Inflation. It's not just about wage growth counter-acting the larger monthly payments it's about expectations of future costs. If people expect future wage growth, whether they've gotten it yet or not, and people expect future rent increases, then they may be willing to pay a little more than the cost to rent now, in order to buy now and fix their housing costs in an inflationary environment. Over the course of 30 years, it's a good bet that you'll be paying back the money in less valuable dollars. It's the same basic concept as buy now or be priced out forever, except on a monthly cash-flow basis rather than a house price basis. While buy now or be priced out forever turned out to be untrue, one could indeed wait out the bubble (in some areas anyway) it is still a compelling pervasive belief.
2) Stickiness. Why is there stickiness? Leverage, transaction costs, and the human nature of viewing small losses far more negatively than small gains are viewed positively.
Why do prices ever fall then? When banks start lending to the limit of lender stupidity, begetting foreclosures, and speculators enter the market who always knew losses were possible and were willing to stick the lenders with them.
Aside from foreclosures, stickiness occurs because very few people are willing to bring money to the table to sell. They might be able to convince themselves that the buyer subsidy "doesn't count", or even that the agent commissions are just the costs of selling, but that's about it. And the fact that most of the sellers don't own their house outright, limits the amount by which it's possible for them to undercut their own purchase price. Except now through short sales. Which is really not any different than an REO, effectively.
It's not just that comps set the price that banks are willing to lend, such that new buyers can keep paying that price. It's also how low sellers CAN go.
This is also partly why the steepest rises can have the steepest crashes. Owners who bought on the way up foreclose, and everyone else, didn't pay that much in the first place so can easily still sell at comps. (except for that whole HELOC problem). Heck, if you think about it that way, HELOC's in small amounts add to neighborhood price stability by undermining owners' ability to undersell their neighbors. Wow, that's terrible.
I should hope all my neighbors who bought for under $200k before 2000 took out at least $100k in HELOC money during the bubble so that they can't drag the neighborhood back down into the 90's pricing. That's an awful thought.
Anyway... slow-rising baked in prices have the most stickiness, because a larger portion of the owners paid closer to peak prices.
None of this is to say that prices can't fall further when interest rates rise. They can. It could happen. I just don't believe it will in the entry-level neighborhoods^, and I have a hard time picturing it happening in the move-up neighborhoods where owners have more equity and more at personal stake*.
^~150-400k
*~500-700k
What happens above 700k is two steps removed from me and I can't wrap my mind around it at all.
Cara-
To be fair to TBW there has also never been a time when interest rates went up starting from 0. This allows rates to rise without inflation. Historically rates only rose when their was inflation, which was able to help mute nominal price declines. I am not saying that this time will be different. I am just saying that since their is no historical period similar to this period it is not out of the question to see a correlation that hasn't showed up in the past.
Also I am not sure that rates rising in the 1910-1920 period didn't happen at the same time as the fall in housing prices. The graph below is inflation adjusted housing prices, but there is no way inflation was bad enough to cut prices by ~40% around 1920. It is also hard to see exactly what interest rates did, but I am pretty sure they went up over this time. If anyone can find mortgage rates in the 1910-1920 period that would be helpful.
housing prices
hb,
Thanks for bring that up, I meant to ask you yesterday to explain how you think mortgage rates might go to 7% without inflation.
The consequences of the zero lower bound are many, but I haven't heard this one... Can you explain?
I think there are two ways rates can rise without inflation. You can easily make the case that rates should be higher than inflation, since you should be compensated for being willing to lend. In this case you would claim rates are only at zero because the fed believed we would have deflation, in which case rates would be higher than inflation. If they get back to believing that we will just have no inflation they could raise rates modestly without any inflation.
The other option is people worry about the governments ability to repay its debts. In this case rates would rise, because investors would want to be compensated with higher rates for the fact there investment is no longer risk free. This is what is happening to Greece right now. Their rates have risen several percent, because people fear they can not repay their debts. In this case you could easily imagine the economy being terrible and having no inflation yet if treasury rates rise mortgage rates would also have to rise.
hb,
Thanks.
The first one makes sense for lenders. Yes, interest rates have to be higher than inflation, otherwise no one would lend money.
But... in terms of the Fed funds rate doesn't the Fed want a little inflation? Isn't the idea to keep the fed funds rate at 0 until after a little inflation has happened and the economy has gotten underway again? And then pick it up a bit to keep inflation in check?
In any case, scenario (1) only gets us to something like another half a percent or so, not all the way to 7% mortgage rates.
Scenario 2, is something like what I was thinking of yesterday and why I didn't pose the question. But instead of on a government basis and the treasury notes, I was thinking in terms of added risk premiums for mortgages themselves being demanded due to say, all the moral hazard that's been thrown out there, or continuing downsliding home prices eroding lender collateral. But it's good to point out that the risk-premium could exist on both the treasuries themselves and be added on top of mortgages.
Strangely I think what one of the lessons from the MBS purchase program will be is actually reasuring investors of the inherent soundness of US mortgages as reliable low-return investments. Yes, this turned into the disasterous basis of securitization into tiered investments that helped fuel loans that breached the limits of lender foolishness. But the profits that the Fed has been reaping with the payments people have been making will reassure pension-plan style investors that yes a 30 year payment stream at ~5% over inflation is indeed, not such a bad thing.
If the Fed keeps releasing good numbers on how much money they're making that in and of itself will be a stabilizing force in the mortgage and treasury markets.
Wow, I'm optimistic today.
Cara-
I think technically the feds mandate is to keep inflation low and keep the economy strong. So if they are able to get the economy growing without inflation then they could raise the rate. I don't think this is a likely scenario so you are probably correct to ignore it.
One thing to be careful to remember about the feds MBS program was they were only buying agency backed MBS. These already are backed by the government so the investor does not lose money if someone defaults. They avoided all of the non-agency MBS that have real risk based on how well mortgages perform. So whether investors raise the risk premium on mortgages is based on how non-agency MBS perform rather than those backed by Fannie/Freddie
housebuyer,
I clearly have no objection to risk-based pricing. Afterall, I'm in the target group to pay the bulk share/cost of this debacle (eventhough I hardly consider myself "rich").
This punish the rich stuff is sickening. It's punish the responsible, hard working and saver's as far as I am concerned.
I would love some decent inflation. Anyone with fixed debt would.
hb,
But the rates everyone quotes are pretty much Fannie and Freddie based rates. Yes, they are the mortgage bankers association and hence across all types, but they currently correspond so well to what can get for a conforming loan that is sellable to the GSE's that I assumed they were the lion's share of the market.
Oh, and to tbw's question, yes, there are now conforming jumbo loans over $429 (or wherever that exactly lies), but they don't have the same rate as under $429.
Cara-
You are correct the rates that are quoted tend to be for conforming loans and Freddie/Fannie get most of these loans. Although when they get bundled up and sold as MBS the investor gets something slightly less, all the bankers that touched the loan want a share of the profit. Fannie and Freddie also need to make money to pay for the fact they insure the loans.
housebuyer,
Yes, it has to be quite a bit less than 5%. Although the exact amount of inflation was also in my fudge number.
3 banks "touched" my loan before it got to a GSE, plus the servicer. They must all have gotten something.
Cara-
I might be off a little on the math, but I am pretty sure the originator basically just gets the points (if you choose no points he can sell the loan for more and effectively gets the 1-2 points...) The servicer tends to get about 0.25% as long as they are servicing the loan. The company that creates the MBS structure and keeps track of everything gets between .01%-.1%. I am not sure how much the GSE charges to ensure the loan, but I would guess its ~1%/year depending on the risk profile of the loan and the MBS holder gets the remaining 3.5%-4% at todays interest rates.
They basically have the same yield as treasuries when you adjust for the duration and some optionality of prepayment risk
housebuyer,
1% annually for insurance? you must be kidding, it must be much lower than that. otherwise GSEs will be in a much better financial position compared to current.
Konstantin-
You are probably right and I am sure historically it was much lower, I thought they had raised it significantly on new loans starting a few months ago. I am pretty sure that Fannie said they expect to have 13% losses on the 2009 vintage. Seeing the average loan only lasts ~7-10 years they would still be losing money on these loans even if they charged 1%/year
housebuyer,
need to be careful there. gse loans require 20% down. 13% losses on 2009 vintage would sound very pessimistic. i would not be surprised if 13% of the 2009 loans will have problems in the long run (but not a direct loss to a gse), that would make sense.
Konstantin-
I also thought it was very pessimistic when I heard it on the radio. I didn't catch the details, because it was in the background when I was at lunch yesterday. I assume more than 13% of people will default at some point though.
Either way I will agree you are probably right that my 1% number was too high, as I said it was a guess and was not really that relevant to my point that agency MBS do not yield much more than treasuries.
Sounds logical - except your huge assumption - "bottom has been hit". The process can reverse itself (downward spiral) when you mirror it backwards...
"Huge" assumption? With many of the metrics going positve (and some of them doing so before the govt support started), I dont know if its a "huge" assumption.
In my mind, banking on the removal of some govt intervention to cause a dramatic reversal of the market, taking out the late 08/early 09 lows is a much more risky proposition.
How about this, lets see (a) all or substantially all of these metrics going negative YOY, (b) a YOY negative price trend start showing up (c) that YOY negative price trend continuing for about a year and (d) see it dramatic enough to get us back within striking distance of the late 08/early 09 lows, and then we can talk.
Post a Comment