Textbook examples of predictable behaviour.

IronWolf

Good article, and highlights the important point in the difference between recognising a bull market, and betting against it. Doesn't take a genius to determine when assets get grossly overvalued, but you'd have to be pretty foolish to bet against such bull markets. Markets are often very irrational in the short/medium term, they will only revert to true value in the long term and thats a huge cost in the case of housing as you have to rent.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IronWolf wrote: »

Doesn't take a genius to determine when assets get grossly overvalued,

Well given that even after the crash, English prices remain at late 2005/early2006 levels, Scottish prices remain at 2006/2007 levels, and even prices in Northern Ireland remain at 2005 or later, it's quite obvious that 2003 prices were not overvalued at all.

RenovationMan

geneer

:rotfl:Ad hominem armageddon.
Looks like they no likee.

An objective observer might take the demonstrable lack of credible counter-arguments as an indication of a lack of counter arguments.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well given that even after the crash, English prices remain at late 2005/early2006 levels, Scottish prices remain at 2006/2007 levels, and even prices in Northern Ireland remain at 2005 or later, it's quite obvious that 2003 prices were not overvalued at all.

Wow. "Timing". :rotfl:

Does anyone else see the irony in a poster attempting to dismiss an analysis of the psychological compulsions of market bulls by confirming exactly to the stereotype defined in the analysis.

How amusing. I've said it before, I'll no doubt say it again, but some Bulls do appear to have an astounding lack of self awareness.

Lets boil it down to the basics.

There is a twist on the arbitrage failure story for
those making bearish pronouncements about any
market. Since the timing of correction is, by the very
definition of a bubble, impossible to determine, then
those who predict the timing of correction (or are
made out to have predicted the timing of correction)
and yet find that it does not materialise in an orderly
fashion will find themselves discredited – only
serving to confirm in public opinion that the
optimists (who were never expected to predict the
timing of anything, and in fact repeatedly got their
forecasts wrong) were right all along. It seems to be
in the nature of bubbles, that as mispricing
intensifies, alternative assessments of what is going
on tend to become ever muted.
Demonstrating that the market is overvalued, and
being able to predict the timing of correction, are
logically mutually exclusive – though it is often
presumed that the former is only valid if the latter is

correct

I wonder what it feels like to be so utterly predicatable.
To find out that the keystone quasi "arguments" of years are a transparent psychological crutch.
I can only imagine I'd be quite upset indeed.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Kirsty's got them weighed off:
"The fact that two couples could decide to take a year out and start up a website to try and crash house prices so that they could weigh in when they returned, wouldn't we all like to do that".

Sorry Pimp. You appear to be defering to the expert opinion of celebrity estate agent Kirsty "I'll eat my hat if house prices crash" Allsop.

A couple of points.

1) If the couple did indeed "start up a website to try and crash house prices" (Which of course is a nonsensical paranoid argument) it would very much appear as if they succeeded.

2) You appear to be dismissing the opinion of someone who correctly saw the crash coming in favour of someone who denied the possibility months before.


The academic analysis and prediction in that paper is amazing.

The writer identified the inevitability of the crash.
The writer stated that the timing of peaks are difficult to predict.
The writer stated exactly how Bullish individuals would respond once events unfolded in the manner they failed to see coming. And I do mean exactly.

And like Hamish you appear to consider eagerly throwing yourself head first into that simplistic stereotype as the appropriate response.

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Thanks geneer by the way.

On no. Thank you Pimperne1.
Thank you very much indeed. :rotfl:

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That article is from 2004.

Here's your pundit.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=246

Thats nice.
Of course nothing to do with the academic papers ("article" hah) author Andrew Farlow, Research Fellow in Economics, Oriel College, oxford university.

If you're going to engage in predictable ad hominem attacks Hamish, please do find the correct individual.

One can only imagine that those who thanked your post are as of ignorant of the facts as your good self.

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

I have to agree RM.
The ill conceived responses by some to the OP do seem to have backfired in a fairly epic fashion.

geneer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htobTBlCvUU

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htobTBlCvUU

geneer's lament:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbwS9qcpi0k