"Breakeven Crash Requirement"

padington

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I didn't realise that I had ever advised someone whether to buy or not. Let alone started a movement.

But thanks - I quite like the "leading light" tag.

No mention of movement ? Maybe implied bowel movements.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well it may come as a surprise, but you don't have to have a full scale "crash" to see lower prices.

Typing "crash wishers" to define people who don't want to see a crash would appear a little tiresome, awkward and plain bizzare. Doesn't stop you?

20% is quite a big crash

so those 'who would like to see lower prices' are wanting prices to fall 5%? whats that going to do for anyone?

anyway stop detracting from a thread by diverting discussions into stupid trivial things like this. I will continue to call them crash-wishers its a good enough description and thats the end of it

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

from my understanding they did not go under because the mortgages they wrote were poor but because their business plan of borrowing via interbank lending was a poor decision that was made impossible by a credit crunch

Step back a second.

WHY couldn't they get funding when other banks not offering the types of loans the 2 failed banks were offering, could?

Were into splitting hairs again with this incessant need to ignore the elephant stomping around the room.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Step back a second.

WHY couldn't they get funding when other banks not offering the types of loans the 2 failed banks were offering, could?

which other banks were exposed to such short term financing risk?

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

20% is quite a big crash

so those 'who would like to see lower prices' are wanting prices to fall 5%? whats that going to do for anyone?

anyway stop detracting from a thread by diverting discussions into stupid trivial things like this. I will continue to call them crash-wishers its a good enough description and thats the end of it

You mean detail, rather than made up assumptions and bad mathematics that allow you to have a pop at some random people on the internet?

My bad.

padington

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Step back a second.

WHY couldn't they get funding when other banks not offering the types of loans the 2 failed banks were offering, could?

Were into splitting hairs again with this incessant need to ignore the elephant stomping around the room.

Graham can you articulate what your essential house price arguement is ?

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

20% is quite a big crash

20% over say 5 years is not a crash.

As I say, you can see lower prices without going through a crash.

It will probably take a crash to see 20% come off prices now, simply because of all the stimulus pumped into the market. If things had been left alone in 2010-12 we'd have likely seen a bit of stability in the market up until today.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

20% over say 5 years is not a crash.

As I say, you can see lower prices without going through a crash.

who died and made you king of defining what percentage is and is not a crash?

Mistermeaner

cells wrote: »

Two accountants, three actuaries, one civil servant.

They were probably having so much fun it was worth the opportunity cost

Graham_Devon

padington wrote: »

Graham can you articulate what your essential house price arguement is ?

I thought you knew what it was?

You told me I was a leading beacon of light for the crashist brethren about 10 posts ago.

Now you want clarification after premature firing of shots?