@fixie guy: Fixie guy, thanks for response. Are you referring the first commentator, or the second (with additional comments from the 3rd)? I agree re: circular thinking. Though it was a fairly good exposition of the various points of view, accurate or not. I'm an American living in Vancouver, but left the US just prior to the housing meltdown. Saw the writing on the wall in 2006, sold the primary residence at the peak (not, unfortunately the lots or beach place)and have just about got all the retirement savings and investments transferred into CAD. The big blind spot I see in all the discussion is…what percentage of homeowners are at risk on the basis not only of buying too high, but borrowing against the home for all manner of things. We know Canadians are into debt up to their necks…how… Read more »

@ #226 Simpatico

Some questionable points in there:

– The rise of American foreclosures lagged the market peak by at least a year

– Much (most?) of Canadian worth is in their homes, so claiming Canadian housing can't collapse because of our worth is circular (see: 2006 Schiff interviews railing against 'false worth')

– American unemployment rates are a symptom of the collapse, not the initial cause. Consequence of basing an economy on real estate (hint hint BC.)

Pretty shoddy reasoning for any academic not named Tsur. The guy has serious problems with the whole 'time' concept.

To the question, are we in a bubble? and what impact on the market, see
http://financialinsights.wordpress.com/ post of 11/21/10. I found it a reasonable discussion of differing points of view, minus the embarrassingly adolescent behaviour and pejoratives being slung around here. (May this blog return soon to prior level of quality discussion.)

@Best place on meth:

Sounds like you answered your own question. I will continue to be right until I am proven wrong.

@Dave:

How long does your theory of a "flat market" need to be waited out before you admit you're wrong?

Because as soon as it breaks one way or the other, you're done.

@Dave is a turd:

Like the time you read a book?

@I detect a realtor troll with too much idle time:

NO-LYMPICS, I have yet to inherit a penny. Every penny is my pocket was self earned. I have made it on my own. True story. Book to come.

@Best place on meth:

Context. Have a look at the original post made by Arit. He is honest about his observations of an active market, but still holds on to the crash theory. I am seriously asking the question or how long this theory needs to be waited out. Maybe his theory is incorrect. It's a valid question to ask. Nothing smug about it.

@oneangryslav2:

I am not attaching values or judgement to this. I am referring to mediocrity in strictly a finance sense. Avoiding risk means you avoid upside. That's all. I am not attacking your self worth at all.

@Dave:

Oh, ok Dave.

From now on I'll respond to everything you say with "maybe your theory is incorrect, at what point will you admit you're wrong?

Then we'll see if you think that's douchy or not.

@Best place on meth:

What's smug about asking a question? If you want smug, I could have easily obliged. Let's face it, I have been far from smug on this site.

@patriotz:

Fair enough and I could agree to that. I think the invested difference from rent will be more or less offset by equity building under the ownership scenario. So, I think using nominal prices is reasonable for this exercise.

Since you bring up 2005, I am guessing that is when you believed we entered this 'bubble'. I have a hard time seeing prices drop below Fall 2006 levels. That's my 'nuclear scenario'.

The last problem I have with your theories is that there is no time attached to them. It's hard for me to ever say 'na na na na, I was right'. But. if prices drop below the 2009 low, you can say it to me.

@fixie guy:

Sure, it depends on lots of variables. I am trying to keep it simple by sticking with nominal values because that is what we all follow on a day to day and year to year basis.