There are other mitigating factors too such as the strengths in the economy, foreign investors buying property, and rising optimism and confidence since Donald Trump won the election. At this point, we’re wondering if Obama and Clinton are relieved not to have to face the mess they created? Trump seems to be up to the task and yet, he has purportedly said he would enjoy watching the crash, even if it takes down some of his real estate empire. Is this just a comment on high home prices?
I’m in the market to buy a house in San Diego County and turn it into a vacation rental. I own one and it is very successful. I’m wondering if I should wait to buy, and if a recession would lead to a decrease in vacation rental bookings? I’m concerned and do not want to find myself under water. Any updates on this fascinating chain of discussion as of April, 2018?
The failure set off a worldwide run on US gold deposits (i.e. the dollar), and forced the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates into the slump. Some 4,000 banks and other lenders ultimately failed. Also, the uptick rule, which allowed short selling only when the last tick in a stock's price was positive, was implemented after the 1929 market crash to prevent short sellers from driving the price of a stock down in a bear raid.
The stimulus provided thus far has managed to expand the amount of money in circulation, M2—a measure of the money supply that includes cash and most deposits—to 8.5% this year, from 8.1% last year. Yet, even with a large growth in the money supply, China has not been able to achieve its desired rate of growth because it is weighed down by its legacy of debt.
That being said, the Buffett Indicator, while it's not a flawless indicator, does tend to peak during hot stock markets and bottom during weak markets. And as a general rule, if the indicator falls below 80%-90% or so, it has historically signaled that stocks are cheap. On the other hand, levels significantly higher than 100% can indicate stocks are expensive.
Thanks for writing the article. It makes some sense. but how about if the amounts are very different? I am currently considering selling my home which will now sell for $1.7 mil. when I purchased 6 years ago it was just under $600k. a 20% drop would be a gain of $340k which would be nice. But the main reason I would consider selling is to re purpose the tax free gains and invest in a range of different investments. I never intended for my house to be an investment tool, but as it has given me such large gains it seems foolish not to take them. In the perhaps 5% to 10% chance the housing market does continue to soar upwards then I guess I’ll never own again! but I will still have considerable assets that will secure me for life.
Martial law is now implemented, the Natzi cabal suspends the election, and congratulate Donal Trump for his PR stunt, and he laughs his ass off because he happy to finally see the New World Oder commensing. Mr, you should see what we do to tritors, in regard to Edward Snowden. The drones have the locations of the people of interest and begin tactical strikes in broad daylight on veterans, patriots, whites, etc. MS 13, he mexican army, the jihadist enter Texas and start launch attacks, russain pulls into the Texas guld and does and anphibian invasion, China attacks Texas with the Mexacn army from the south, the russians come down from Colorado from the East North and south. Not a nice time or place to be in as i see.
Now the stock market needed to be revived. And hence lots of fresh reforms were started to stabilize the market once again. As already mentioned one supposed reason for the stock market crash of 2000 was the advent of the internet and online trading in such a huge number. To see that just about anyone doesn’t jump into stock trading a rule was formed for these Daytraders. Going by these rules, an individual had to have a minimum of $25000 to their name in any bank account. That would ensure that the person is not insolvent. Other than this very basic rule, lots of other rules were laid which could restrict the previous marketing methods which led to losses.
The critical point where bubbles end happens as investors begin to think that the rally is over. It is when this opinion travels deep into the system and becomes generalized that the system ends up in a crash. The paradox here is that a crash is often (and mistakenly) characterized as “market chaos.” In fact, it is the opposite: a crash reflects a highly ordered market, when everyone does the same thing (i.e. sell). A truly “chaotic” market is one where everyone is doing something different, interactions offset each other and price volatility remains low.
So many people blindly put money into their 401k and assume it will grow into something they can retire on. This is an extremely bad plan for one main reason, lack of diversification. Sure, they might have money in three or four different funds, but it’s still fully invested in stocks and is entirely dependent on market growth. In the event of a crash, they’re absolutely screwed.
On September 16, 2008, failures of massive financial institutions in the United States, due primarily to exposure to packaged subprime loans and credit default swaps issued to insure these loans and their issuers, rapidly devolved into a global crisis. This resulted in a number of bank failures in Europe and sharp reductions in the value of stocks and commodities worldwide. The failure of banks in Iceland resulted in a devaluation of the Icelandic króna and threatened the government with bankruptcy. Iceland obtained an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund in November. In the United States, 15 banks failed in 2008, while several others were rescued through government intervention or acquisitions by other banks. On October 11, 2008, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that the world financial system was teetering on the "brink of systemic meltdown".
When living in Australia between 1995 and 2005, I worked with someone who was 100% convinced that the Australian house price increases were unsustainable, that the market had peaked, and that selling out and getting back in a couple of years was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, this was around 2002 or 2003 and all that Australian prices did for the next 7 or 8 years was to continue to increase. Last I heard from her, she and her husband had given up any hope of ever again owning their own house.
The Fed didn't realize a collapse was brewing until March 2007. It realized that hedge fund housing losses could threaten the economy. Throughout the summer, banks became unwilling to lend to each other. They were afraid that they would receive bad MBS in return. Bankers didn't know how much bad debt they had on their books. No one wanted to admit it. If they did, then their credit rating would be lowered. Then, their stock price would fall, and they would be unable to raise more funds to stay in business.
The market could collapse if the yield curve on U.S. Treasury notes became inverted. That's when the interest rates for short-term Treasurys become higher than long-term yields. Normal short-term yields are lower because investors don't require a high return to invest for less than a year. When that inverts, it means investors think the short-term is riskier than the long-term. That would play havoc with the mortgage market and signal a recession. The yield curve inverted before the recessions of 2008, 2000, 1991, and 1981.
Marc, I hope you and your kids can stay in So Cal, but can you see how the money and people are being vilified for wanting to be part of California’s successful economy and lifestyle. The real villains are those who are preventing development. And that new development really drives the economy, thus giving California a chance to compete in the global age. Other cities in Canada and the UK have the same problem and in each case it’s politicians squeezing supply. And the actions they’re taking does point to a recession eventually. If California’s polticians remove constraints, you’ll have lower prices in San Diego, LA and the SF Bay Area. The market alway solves itself.
The new companies reduced Atari's share of the cartridge-game market from 75% in 1981 to less than 40% in 1982. David Crane, one of the founders of Activision after leaving Atari, recalled that during the six months between two consecutive Consumer Electronic Shows, the number of third-party developers jumped from 3 to 30. Attempting to imitate Activision, the new companies attempted to use programmers unfamiliar with game development to produce, Crane said, "the worst games you can imagine". Companies lured away each other's programmers or used reverse engineering to learn how to make games for proprietary systems. Atari even hired several programmers from Mattel's Intellivision development studio, prompting a lawsuit by Mattel against Atari that included charges of industrial espionage.
While some areas such as the 905 have seen big drops, (houses are sitting and have to be rented now) areas in Toronto have maintained prices. These neighbourhoods offer a more reliable bet for sustainable property investment value. Many property investors have discovered the hard way, what the word sustainable means in bottom line dollar terms. Because of demand, two hot areas right now are rental property investment and student housing investment.
One particular kind of stock to give special consideration to are dividend-paying stocks. That's because they can simply be great investments on their own and also because when they fall in price, their dividend yields get pushed up. That's a matter of simple math, because a dividend yield is just a fraction -- a stock's total annual dividend divided by its recent stock price. As a simple example, imagine a company that pays out $0.25 per quarter per share, or $1 per year per share. Imagine that it's trading for $50 per share pre-crash and that it falls to $40 post-crash. The dividend stays the same -- though companies in deep trouble may indeed cut or eliminate their dividend. Divide $1 by $50 and you'll get 0.02, or a 2% dividend yield. Divide $1 by $40, and you'll get 0.025, or a 2.5% yield. If the stock falls in half, to $25 per share, its dividend yield will be 4%. That's why market downturns can be great for dividend investors -- not only are dividend yields boosted, but depressed stock prices can also be bargains, with the promise of growth when the market recovers.
There are a few things to bear in mind here. The first is that investors can overestimate their ability to endure losses during the good times. So be a little more conservative in your allocation than you might think. Also, it's not just about having nerves of steel, it's also about how soon you'll need the money in your portfolio. Even if you are a fearless and disciplined investor, it doesn't matter if you need to spend down a big chunk of your portfolio each year. Regardless of your temperament you'll be a forced seller in a weak market, and therefore, considering having some of your assets more conservatively positioned so that they are a more robust source of cash when you need them can make sense.