Bullish Bulls have been calling the "Soft Landing" every year since 2002.

geneer

So, hows that been working out then?



2002: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2548507-soft-landing-for-housing-market.do



2003: http://www.businessmortgages.co.uk/news/cml-predict-2003-house-prices.html


2004: http://www.countrylife.co.uk/property_news/article/57880/Soft-Landing-Predicted.html



2005: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2916706/House-market-on-track-for-soft-landing.html

2006: "increased confidence on the part of buyers and sellers as they became more comfortable that the market was heading for a soft landing."
http://www.creditcrunch.co.uk/forum/topic/9226-house-prices-surge-to-10-months-high/




2007: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/soft-landing-in-prospect-for-housing-market-in-britain-403790.html


2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/01/economics.creditcrunch

purch

So, hows that been working out then?

Still waiting for the promised Crash.

We can talk about the kind of landing we get after that happens.

geneer

purch wrote: »

Still waiting for the promised Crash.

We can talk about the kind of landing we get after that happens.

Hows the soft landing going? Never seems to be a long time.

Degenerate

So they've been calling it since 2002? I'm struggling with your logic here, geneer. When you look at the course of house prices since 2002, it's clear that even a "soft landing" was pessimistic, and anyone expecting a crash has been so wrong it's laughable. How far would prices have to crash now to wipe out the HPI since 2002?

Heyman_2

Degenerate wrote: »

So they've been calling it since 2002? I'm struggling with your logic here, geneer. When you look at the course of house prices since 2002, it's clear that even a "soft landing" was pessimistic, and anyone expecting a crash has been so wrong it's laughable. How far would prices have to crash now to wipe out the HPI since 2002?

Never mind all that, roll on the gish-galloping and Wind Up Merchantry!

geneer

Degenerate wrote: »

So they've been calling it since 2002? I'm struggling with your logic here, geneer. When you look at the course of house prices since 2002, it's clear that even a "soft landing" was pessimistic, and anyone expecting a crash has been so wrong it's laughable. How far would prices have to crash now to wipe out the HPI since 2002?

Well degenerate, all I'm noting is that they called the soft landing in
2002. It didn't happen.
They called the soft landing in 2003. It didn't happen.
They called the soft landing in 2004. It didn't happen.
They called the soft landing in 2005. It didn't happen.
They called the soft landing in 2006. It didn't happen.
They called the soft landing in 2007. heh heh heh.
Then, to add a little cherry on the cake, they called the soft landing in 2008. Tee hee.

I suppose if theres a lesson to be learned here, its that all parties seemed to struggle with the timing of market movements.

But on balance, "never" is indeed a long time.
So it really does look like the minority who understood the meaning of the word "inevitable" really can be pleased at their prescience and foresight, however hard others try to rewrite history.

Thanks for asking.

Degenerate

geneer wrote: »

Well degenerate, all I'm noting is that they called the soft landing in
2002. It didn't happen. - Instead they went up.
They called the soft landing in 2003. It didn't happen. - Instead prices went up.

They called the soft landing in 2004. It didn't happen. - Instead prices went up.

They called the soft landing in 2005. It didn't happen. - Instead prices went up.

They called the soft landing in 2006. It didn't happen. - Instead prices went up.

They called the soft landing in 2007. heh heh heh. - Instead they prices up. The market turned too late in the year to cause a year on year drop.

Then, to add a little cherry on the cake, they called the soft landing in 2008. - This is the one year prices actually dropped.
Thanks for asking.

You're welcome. Shall we mention that prices also went up in 2009?

Any "bullish bull" predicting a soft landing in the early 2000s can only be said to have been unduly pessimistic, given that the market went on to massively outperform this prediction, to the extent that the eventual drop that did occur was nowhere near enough to wipe out the gains. So what exactly was your point again? You seem to be making a case that people weren't bullish enough.

geneer

Degenerate wrote: »

You're welcome. Shall we mention that prices also went up in 2009?

Any "bullish bull" predicting a soft landing in the early 2000s can only be said to have been unduly pessimistic, given that the market went on to massively outperform this prediction, to the extent that the eventual drop that did occur was nowhere near enough to wipe out the gains. So what exactly was your point again? You seem to be making a case that people weren't bullish enough.

Actually Degenerate, they can only be said to have been wrong.
Thats my point.

Crashing, the 2009 recuhvereeeeeee, the 2010 Decovery, the second phase..all irrelevant to the subject under consideration.
Because none of those events were soft landings.
And a soft landing cannot now ever happen.

Unlike the crash. Which was of course inevitable.

Degenerate

geneer wrote: »

Actually Degenerate, they can only be said to have been wrong.
Thats my point.

So what you're saying is, the market having exceeded some Bull's expectations invalidates their optimistic stance? That's rather convoluted logic.

Crashing, the 2009 recuhvereeeeeee, the 2010 Decovery, the second phase..all irrelevant to the subject under consideration.
Because none of those events were soft landings.
And a soft landing cannot now ever happen.

That's a prediction subject to just as much uncertainty as the ones your are deriding.

Unlike the crash. Which was of course inevitable.

The market cannot be said to have crashed over a timescale from the early 2000s until now. The bears that were predicting a crash back then were wrong. Prices are higher now than then, at no point since then have they dropped to the same level, let alone crashed below it.

It seems to me that you think any bullish prediction that isn't 100% accurate invalidates the bullish perspective, but any drop in prices at all constitutes your fabled "crash" and vindicates the Bears. Good luck with that, it won't help you financially, whereas taking the bullish view has paid off for many.

geneer

Degenerate wrote: »

So what you're saying is, the market having exceeded some Bull's expectations invalidates their optimistic stance? That's rather convoluted logic.

Its actually quite clear what I'm saying.
The bullish expectation appears to have been for a soft landing.
Each year for seven years.
Just didn't happen.

What it does invalidate is the viability of the regularly regurgitated bull meme about "timing". Cos not only did they fail to accurately call the soft landing, it transpires that it was a fuzzy wishful pipe dream epic fail all along.

Degenerate wrote: »

That's a prediction subject to just as much uncertainty as the ones your are deriding.

No. Thats a observation made on that house prices did indeed crash significantly in 2008. Check with your pal Hamish_Mctavish, he'll keep you right.

And of course a crash means no soft landing. Ever.

Degenerate wrote: »

The market cannot be said to have crashed over a timescale from the early 2000s until now. The bears that were predicting a crash back then were wrong. Prices are higher now than then, at no point since then have they dropped to the same level, let alone crashed below it.

Nothing to do with me mate.

But I would ask how those who predicted a house price crash was inevitable were wrong, given, y'know, the house price crash.

Can't really dispute the fact that some bears didn't get the timing right.
But then again, it seems that it wasn't just the bears who failed to
see just how super silly the banks were going to get.

I'm sure you're super pleased that in 2004/2005 the banks decided to rewrite the rule book and push it until the wheels came off.
I'm glad the bulls like property. Cos like the rest of us, they'll be paying for it in a number of ways for a very long time.

Degenerate wrote: »

It seems to me that you think any bullish prediction that isn't 100% accurate invalidates the bullish perspective, but any drop in prices at all constitutes your fabled "crash" and vindicates the Bears. Good luck with that, it won't help you financially, whereas taking the bullish view has paid off for many.

Is that how it seems.

Seems to me that your main point here is that despite the clear evidence of predictions of soft landings every single year since 2002, this did not neccesarily inform the opinions of all bulls. Well actually, fair enough. Its a shame you then blew it by talking about bears as if they were one hive mind wholly defined by the most extreme comments of a handful of people.

geneer

PROUD_HOMEOWNER_CLASS wrote: »

2001 HPC.co.uk formed in a grotty Luton bedsit over a bookies.
2002 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2003 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2004 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2005 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2006 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2007 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2008 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2009 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2010 HPC.co.uk call a house price crash.
2011 HPC.co.uk founders still living in a grotty Luton bedsit over a bookies. Meanwhile the landlords mortgage has been paid off by the renters dead money.

Snap!

The "timing" game.
How original and unexpected.

Image (C) march 2008.;)