Slashdot Mirror


The DotCom Crash Revisited

woginuk writes "At 9:00pm GMT today , it will be exactly 5 years since the Nasdaq reached its highest level, 5048.62. From there on it has been downhill all the way. Most of us have been affected by it, one way or the other. The Guardian has a story looking back on the moment and succeeding events."

41 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by LewsTherinKinslayer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It seems a bit oversimplistic to call that the result of the "DotCom Crash." And also, its a far throw from a crash.

    1. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by doublech1n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Far throw from a crash????? The Nasdaq went from 5000 to 1500 in a matter of a year and a half, that's a 70% freefall, trillions of dollars up in smoke. Here is a friendly reminder for those who are destined to repeat themselves. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=%5EIXIC&t=5y&l=on& z=l&q=l&p=&a=&c=URL

    2. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Ced_Ex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't say the dollars went up in smoke. There were piles of people who got real fat from the crash. The smoke you saw was from these fat cats who rolled their cigars with $100 dollar bills instead of tobacco.

      For what it's worth, I hate those people.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    3. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was really an adjustment.

      If you look at the fundamentals of all the stocks you listed, with the exception of RedBack, they are pretty much where they should be now, based on P/E and EPS. JNPR still has a slightly high P/E, so there still may be some downward pressure in that stock.

      Most investors, that understand the markets, knew that an adjustment was coming, it was just a matter of when. During the "boom" all regard for the fundamentals of a company were thrown out the window, and the valuations of a company's stock were outragious. Juniper, the company, was NEVER worth close to $245/share.

      So while people got burned, and they may call it a "crash", most investors call it a correction or adjustment.

    4. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by bigman2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I spent a lot of time in San Jose in late 1999. I was going to different training classes (Oracle) for my boring, but steady government job. (I'm still here...)

      Every place I went people were talking about their fantastic dotcom business plan. I probably heard 2 or 3 'pitches' every morning while eating at the Denny's next to my Motel 6. I had to stay at Motel 6 because every single room at every single hotel (other than Motel 6) was taken. People were coming from all over the place to get in on this revolution.

      Dinner, and going out was the same. Even at night-clubs everyone (even the girls) were talking dotcom this or that.

      Then my class was actually worse. I was in a room with 19 other students. I was the only non dotcom worker, and the only one not setting his sights on making millions. (I am also probably the only one who still has his/her job.)

      I met two people in class who were the 'Head Programmer' in their company, who did not even know SQL- yet they were being entrusted to create the sites that their business plan depended on. Oddly enough, the class was for Oracle Administrators, but there were there to learn how to pull data from a table. That was some sad mis-management.

      After about 4 weeks in San Jose, I finally finished up my Oracle training and left town. I felt like I had to shower for a few days just to get all of the dotcom off of me, it was pretty sick. The focus on money, and the thought that people would become rich from a few months work was depressing. Of course I was also bitter that these schmucks were making a lot more money than I was.

      Needless to say, I wasn't too upset about the bust.

      --
      No reason to lie.
  2. Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The rampant speculation has moved right into real estate. Prepare for the next great crash, with greater consequences.

    1. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by yincrash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      at least real estate exists rather than promises of technology.

    2. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by cmowire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's the exact same thing.

      If you buy stock in... say... Google, there's a certain intrinsic value because, if they were to liquidate, they'd have their racks of hardware, their office space, etc. There's money to be hand to buy up the patents and trademarks and everything else...

      Much the same way as there's a certain intrinsic value in real estate. You need to remember that part of real estate is all about location, which is not intrinsic.

      In both cases, the price you pay is the intrinsic value of the item, plus all of the abstract hard-to-quantify stuff. If all of the tech firms moved out of Silicon Valley, there would be a lot less demand for land in the area, for example. The value of the property goes down, even though "they aren't making more land".

    3. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by Edward+Faulkner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Save for a minor dip in the 90's housing prices have never fallen in 22 years.

      That's precisely the kind of thinking that makes crashes possible. When everyone believes something is a safe bet, they discount risk more and more. Market phenomena often work themselves out over decades, which is beyond most people's attention span.

      Take stocks for example. From 1980 to 2001, stocks were the right place to be. When a trend lasts that long, it changes people's attitudes. In 1980, most people were very nervous about stocks, because they had spent the previous couple decades sucking.

      If you bought the Dow Jones in 1929, you had to wait until 1956 just to break even. And this isn't such a rare outlier. If you bought in 1966, you didn't break even until 1983. Once you include taxes and fees, it was more like the early 90s.

      It takes a while for attitudes to shift. Despite the bubble popping, lots of people still believe that their 401k is going to grow at 7-10% per year. That's not necessarily true anymore.

      America's economic fundamentals are troubling. We actually spend 5% more than we make. With no domestic savings to fund future growth (or even service our existing debts), we're dependent on foreign investors. And the foreign investors are getting very nervous as the dollar continues to slide.

      --
      "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton
    4. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by ZoneGray · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We had a real estate crash in 1991 and it sucked, even if you didn't own real estate.

      Don't hold your breath waiting for housing prices to drop more than a couple percent, anyway. And even then, mortgage rates would be high, so it would be difficult to take advantage.

      The key to success in real estate is simple: Buy Young.

      Buy a house as soon as you can manage it, put down as little as you can, get as big a mortgage as your paycheck can handle, and buy in the nicest part of town that you can afford. It can be a financial load at first, but as the years go by, it gets easier and easier; your mortgage payments are fixed as your income increases (even if you just make inflationary raises, after 20 years those mortgage payments become relatively small). And the mortgage interest deduction is one of the great ripoffs of all time, you might as well take advantage of it.

      I didn't buy young, to my eternal regret. I remember 20 years ago thinking, "$50,000? I could never pay that off." But if I had bought, I'd be living in a $400K house paying about $250/month for a mortgage.

    5. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by winkydink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, as Mark Twain once said, "land if the one think that God's not making more of". There's a finite amount. I think 20 years would qualify as a long-term investmnent in just about anybody's book. But, perhaps unlike some people, I didn't buy a house as an investment. I bought a house to own the place I live in. The appreciation in value has been a major upside, but it's not my motivating factor. I bought my first house in 1988, sold it when I married to buy a bigger place and start a family. I'm in no hurry to sell now, top of the market or not. It's paid for. I own it lock, stock and barrel. No f-ing mortgage payments and I like it that way just fine, tyvm. If you're so very sure of yourself, short real-estate related stocks. You'll clean up.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    6. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much the same way as there's a certain intrinsic value in real estate. You need to remember that part of real estate is all about location, which is not intrinsic.

      Uh, last I checked, you buy a property in Manhattan, whatever happens to the real estate market, your property is still in Manhattan.

      Location is intrinsic. The value of that location is not intrinsic, but that value itself is linked to intrinsic, er, properties (for lack of a better word). For example, New York was built where it is because it is on top of one of the greatest natural harbors in the world. That is never going to change, so the value of a particular property in New York will likely not fluctuate all that wildly - it does have a certain intrinsic value based on physical properties of the location that will never be altered.

      Beyond that, I just don't think there is any comparison between real estate and stocks. When you buy a stock you are buying a piece of paper - you're no longer even buying the promise of dividends (which is why people used to buy stock), because most technology companies have chosen to forego dividends and instead reinvest that money into company growth. The unspoken expectation between company and investor is that eventually there will be a dividend payout and all that investing will have counted for something, but this expectation was sort of turned on its ear during the dot-com bubble and people started investing instead with nothing but the expectation that the stock would go up. They had no idea why they were actually doing it; it was not based on anything.

      Then we had the crash, which knocked some sense back into these people. Those who argued that you buy stock based on company fundamentals and not speculation were vindicated. Something similar could happen in real estate, but never on that scale because after all, when you buy real estate you are buying a tangible asset, not a piece of paper that is already priced based on the expected position of the company five, ten, even twenty years in the future.

      In both cases, the price you pay is the intrinsic value of the item, plus all of the abstract hard-to-quantify stuff.

      This is not at all true. When you buy stock you are not paying for the intrinsic value of anything. You are paying for the expected future intrinsic value of a company, based on its P/E ratio.

      To make stocks and real estate equivalent, a seller of a home or a piece of land would have to say to you "this home may only be worth $300,000, but I am going to charge you $2.4 million because that is what I believe it will be worth 20 years from now." Obviously, nobody buys real estate like this, but it is exactly the way people buy stocks. Stocks have a certain level of inherent speculation (even if you're buying "value" stocks, the P/E ratios are rarely less than 8 or so... with tech stocks they're usually more like 60 or 70), whereas real estate is always sold for what it's valued at today.

      So the prices of real estate can go up and down, but because there is little speculation involved (unless you're buying undeveloped land in the hope that it will eventually be developed), there is little risk of a sharp downturn. That's as true now as it ever was. I mean, people have been saying for 100 years that real estate is overpriced, but how much do you think an average home built in 1900 costs today compared to what it cost at that time? Real estate prices will only continue to rise over time because there are only so many places to live in this country and a lot more people both being born and moving in every day.

      Stock prices are really anybody's guess. They've trended upwards over time just as real estate has, but they've always been subject to severe corrections, bubbles and overall fluctuations than real estate has.

    7. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by captaincucumber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Housing prices have jumped up about 40% each year for the past few years...

      Not in Iowa they haven't. Or most of the U.S. Only in certain very select areas of California where people have lost their common sense.

    8. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by futuresheep · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right. In fact, the house I currently own is about to go on the market, but our equity is about to get reinvested in building a house. Once the project is done, we'll have a good bit more equity than we have now, with approximately the same mortgage balance and payment.

      The average home may be owned for 7 years, but how many people that own go back to renting?

      Nice try.

    9. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by Christianfreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Probably will happen to some extent, and in some ways it probably needs to. I would prefer that our money was based on something a bit more concrete.

      2. This I have a harder time with. Our GDP is still the largest in the world. If some countries pull out, the countries left stand to make more money in the long run IMHO.

      3. If there is a panic, but I have a hard time seeing that as I stated in 2.

      4. Interest rates are going up, this is true but it will happen gradually. People dumb enough to get variable rate loans will suffer the most as their rates get hiked, though that won't happen overnight. The variable rate mortgages I know of have provisions where they can't go up at all for the first x number of years and have a limit on how much they can go up per year after that, so most people are going to at least have fair warning, and if they are smart they will refinance with a fixed rate before the rates get too high to afford.

      5. Only if the interest rates go up overnight. They aren't going to.

      6. Doubtful. Even if the real-estate market collapsed doesn't mean the money isn't going to go into something else.

      7. It won't as long as we can avoid panicing.

      8. And you "read" this somewhere. What on someone's leftist blog? They will be long gone before anything like this happens.

      9. or not.

      10, 11. So get out of debt now and take advantage of it. Honestly though why would "the rich" buy into real estate. If people can't afford to keep their houses (even when many many people have low rate fixed mortgages) how are they going to afford rent? If the interest rates are so high the owners of the property are going to pass that cost on to the renter. Besides if the prices go way down that offsets the high interest rates. 90%? please. I guess that depends on your definition of "the rich". You do realize that in the US we are all fricking filthy rich right? Most of us just bad at managing our money. Honestly in some ways I wish your scenerio would come true because it might actually get people to start being more responsible and stop buying so much garbage from China.

    10. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not entirely sound. I bought a house aged 20 and then house prices slid over the next 5 years. 5 years later (after earnings inflation) I could have bought my house for 20% less.

      So, whilst buying early is good, the most important less in investment is always buy low

    11. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful
      you don't "BUY" a house, you get the bank to buy it for you, and then you lease it from them
      Wrong. You borrow money from the bank to buy the house, and get a lower interest rate by giving the bank a security interest in the property. The bank does not have the title -- you do. The bank DOES have a lien against the title, but it's still YOUR property, not the bank's. If it was the bank's property, they would be responsible for maintenance and taxes.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    12. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How stupid is it to pay 10,000 in interest so you can deduct 28% of that amount from your taxes?
      How stupid is it to pay $10,000 in rent so you can deduct NONE of that amount from your taxes?

      If you pay rent, you're making someone else's mortgage payment for them. They get all the equity you're paying for, and when you move you get nothing. Unless you're living in your mother's basement rent free, owning is the way to go.

      I've owned my house for 3 years. When I was renting I was paying about $1,200 a month, now I pay about $1,800 in mortgage payments. After taxes I'm only paying about $100 more a month out-of-pocket, which gets me more than double the living space (2100 ft^2, 4 bedrooms vs 900 ft^2 2 bedrooms). That alone is worth it.

      If I had rented for the last 3 years and invested the difference I'd have saved $3,600. Even if I sold my house at the exact same price I bought it for, I'd have well over three times that amount in equity. Even if 99% of your house payment is interest, that's still 1% that comes back to you. With rent, you get NOTHING back.

      Of course, my house is worth a lot more now then when I bought it -- at it's current value I have over $100,000 in equity. I defy you to name any other investment that could yield a $100K return in 3 years for $100 per month.

      Even if the bottom fell out of the real estate market tomorrow, and I could only sell my house for half of what I bought it for, I'd STILL be better off than if I was renting because my house payment wouldn't change, and still woudn't be paying out significantly more per month for living expenses than I'd be paying in rent.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    13. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your analysis is incomplete. The comparison is not "debt vs. no debt." The correct comparison is paying money to live in your own place or paying money to live in someone else's place. To extend your analogy, it's either

      A) I give the bank 10 and I get 2 back in taxes + 1 in equity, or

      B) I give the landlord 12 (or even 9) and get nothing in return.

      I have to live somewhere, and the landlord isn't going to charge me less rent than his cost of ownership...unless I'm living with my parents.

      IF it's possible for me to accumulate a lot of cash in 2 years and make a massive down-payment, then great. But usually, renting is swimming against the tide. If you doubt this, get a calculator and compute mortgage payments on houses in your area, subtract 20% for the tax break, and then compare that to rents for comparable places.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    14. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by ZoneGray · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's possible to lose a little money in the short run by buying a home. But over 10 years or more, you'll always come out ahead. However, it's important to buy wisely, and I should have emphasized that.

      My rule of thumb is that you want to look for a place where the highest portion of the value comes from the land rather than the structure. The land is what goes up in price, the structure actually devalues over time. A $100K house on a $200K lot is a safer investment than a $200K house on a $100K lot. And both are safer investments than a $300K condo.

      This is really just a variation on the old principle of, "Location, Location, Location."

      Condos do sort of scare me, I heard recently that 60% of new Florida condos are being bought by investors. That's a sign of a speculative bubble. But single family homes aren't quite as susceptible to that stuff.

      Mortgages are simply a great deal, effectively you can pay 3-4% interest, and homes will always beat that over the long term.

    15. Re:Real Estate Bubble - Stock Bubble by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A housing bubble is pretty easy to recognise.

      You might be seeing a housing bubble if

      it's significantly cheaper to rent than buy,

      if people are saying that you can't possibly lose money,

      if the cost of ordinary housing is beyond the reach of ordinary folks, even with two wage earners.

      I think that California qualifies on those last two counts, at least. How is the rental situation? Is rent cheaper than mortgage payments for a comparable accomodation? If so, this might be a great time to sell your house and rent something comparable.

      The median price in Santa Clara County (... where regular folks live) is $615k.

      Most Californians can't afford to buy a house. At 5% interest, each $100k of mortgage means $536 of monthly payments on a thirty year mortgage. If you have a 20% downpayment, you're going to have a monthly mortgage payment of $2641, plus taxes, plus a bit extra for points. That's more than $31k a year just for a mortgage! The median household would be spending more than 60% of their household income on their mortgage payment, if they could find a fool who would give them a loan that was that much beyond their means.

      Housing prices are notoriously sticky downward, because homeowners will resist selling when they're upside down on their mortgage. However, if those homeowners start missing mortgage payments or going bankrupt, the banks wind up having a firesale.

      If interest rates rise noticably, enough people will be priced out of the market that demand will fall, and there will be a glut of $600k houses. No one will be willing to sell them for a $100k loss, so many Californians will be living in houses with for sale signs in the yard, hoping that they can unload and move to some place they'd rather be. The folks who have to move will lose an arm and a leg.

      It could get a lot worse than that. I'd guess that if there is another significant dip in California's economy, there will be a lot of recent home buyers who just can't make those mortgage payments, and a shortage of ``bigger fools'' on whom they can unload those houses. Then prices won't be sticky downward anymore! Banks will be repossessing and selling at auction, and we'd see Santa Clara houses going for Houston prices.

  3. Everyone was guilty of hubris at the time by filmmaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a quote in that article by Rob Hersov that describes the way a lot of people felt at that time:

    "Those were incredibly heady days," he says. "Fun - absolutely. We thought we were making a difference. We thought we were getting out there, shaking things up, doing something no one had done before. We really were pioneers - buccaneers."

    That statement demonstrates the two truths of the dot com explosion: on one had, we really did make a difference - we built a huge IT infrastructure in, essentially, the blink of an eye. On the other hand, that statement is packed with the hubris and exaggerated sense of importance that also permeated the time.

    The analogy was often made in 2000/2001 of the Detroit auto industry and the development of the US national highway system. The same thing happened with scores (or maybe it was hundreds?) of companies popping up with the word "motors" in their name during the period. And now there are 3; the big 3 left in Detroit.

    Not only that, but barring e-Bay and a few other notables, the companies that made it out of the bubble are ones with unique brand names: Google, Amazon, Travelocity, Yahoo!, and GoDaddy.

    I also disagree with the apparent conclusion that there are no lone wolves anymore. The climate is better for a savvy lone wolf than it was even in 1997, I believe.

    Who came up with the e-Idea of e-Appending e-E to e-Everything anyway?

  4. At 9:00pm GMT today by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which is 16:00 in the timezone that the NASDAQ uses.

    So, half an hour before the closing bell. Maybe CNBC will go black for a minute, in memoriam.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Re:Get out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "And we're still waiting for all the "Wrong people" to leave our profession. Leaving more room for those deserving it."

    How exactly is anyone deserving?

  6. Just for fun by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Read about the California Gold Rush, and mentally timeshift the dates and where appropriate substitute gold oriented things with computers.

    The biggest difference between the two is that California was not settled at the time and it was most difficult to get basic necessities. Otherwise, same shit different day. People think they can get something for nothing.

    1. Re:Just for fun by cot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, unfortunately I was in school at the time. I actually had thoughts about stopping out and trying to make a quick buck while I could, realizing that the atmosphere wasn't going to last forever. Like they say, you make money during a gold rush by selling shovels (or something like that).

      --

  7. Re:It wasn't THE END by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    There was a report on the San Francisco public radio station yesterday that said that if you look at growth in Silicon Vally over the last 20 years and "flatten" (whatever that means) the growth around the bubble, Silicon Valley continues to grow at relatively the same pace as before.

    Leave it to a public radio station to distort reality. If you use public radio to get your "news" then you, my friend, are an idiot. Or since you're in Sillycone (sic) valley, I'll put it in terms you can easily understand:


    if (me.getNews("NPR"))
    me.setIdiot(true);

  8. Downhill all the way? by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know about that; more like finding its proper level again. Take a look at a comparison between the NASDAQ (^IXIC) and the Dow Jones (^DJI) and you'll see what I mean.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  9. A day late... by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it was March 10th, 2000 when the NASDAQ peaked. Was this story submitted yesterday and the editors didn't bother to update the reference to the anniversary being today? The anniversary was yesterday.

  10. Isn't Over Yet by mslinux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Home prices have yet to crash. Everyone keeps talking about how we had a 'soft landing'... it was soft because of low interest rates that have allowed people who really can't afford housing to get into the game. Wait until the housing bubble pops. Then, we'll get what we should have got when techs crashed... it's gonna be painful, real painful. All one needs to do is read a bit of history to understand how insane real estate prices in America have become. American debt is at an all-time high. We owe way too much money. Home prices have been going up by 20 and 30% annually in many areas... pay checks haven't... is it just me, or do others find this odd?

    1. Re:Isn't Over Yet by telemonster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a 10% surplus in houses in the US.

      I believe the figures run 10% to 25% of current houses are sold for speculation. It isn't just families buying houses. You have people buying vacation homes, and other people buying properties to turn into rentals, to flip, and even *foreign investors* getting in on the chance to make money.

      What happens when there isn't enough tennants? Not enough buyers? What happens when the speculators quit speculating and paying high prices? Will they freak out when the prices start to decline?

      In my region housing has jumped significantly, and has left first time homeowners in the dust. But hey, no one looses. Oh yea, and we are about to loose 1100 high paying jobs, and potentially 10,000 people if two carriers are moved to Florida.

      It's speculation. Just like the .coms, there are alot of n00bs playing the game. I'd be willing to bet there are alot of n00bs that are about to get fragged. These times aren't like past times. Do you feel confident the economy is getting stronger? I don't. I know a number of people who have taken salary cuts to remain employed (and their employers are gov contractors milking the gov't tit).

      The press release for February made it sound like it is. It bragged about all these new jobs that were created. But wait, why did it say the unemployment rate rose slightly near the end? OOPS, it's because MORE JOBS WERE LOST than were created! We have more older people are working longer. Lots of people entering the workforce. Lots of jobs moving overseas. High productivity from those that have jobs. Where is the money going to come from?

      I believe if you look at Japan, they have a limited supply of land... and have suffered a housing bubble.

      Supply and demand.

      --
      Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  11. Looked pretty obvious to me by samael · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was a classic bubble - when it got to the stage that companies were seeing their share price go up for adding ".com" onto the end it was ridiculous. When people at work told me their families and friends were investing in the stock market by blindly following tips on a weekly tech-stocks sheet I knew the end was just around the corner.

    What amazed me was that it then went on to last another 9 months _after_ that point. I guess irrational exuberance can take you a long way before you realise that buying your cat food online and having it freighted to you isn't actually terribly efficient.

  12. Downhill all the way? by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    At 9:00pm GMT today , it will be exactly 5 years since the Nasdaq reached its highest level, 5048.62. From there on it has been downhill all the way. [emphasis added]

    Well, no. Looking at the five-year chart would seem to suggest it was slowly downhill until the third quarter of 2002, followed by partial recovery through 2003, and a relatively stable index in 2004....

    There's an argument to be made that it's been stagnant for a year, but the Dow has been the same way.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  13. Tulipomania by jamrock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even before the burst of the "Tech Bubble", my eldest brother, who owns a Canadian mutual fund company, was comparing it to the "Tulip Bubble", which brought down the Dutch economy in 1637. The obvious similarity between the two was rampant speculation brought on by greed and clouded judgement.

    Or as it was nicely put by a judge who ruled that four leading investment banks were not to blame for stock market losses following the collapse of the tech bubble [analysts from Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and CSFB had been accused of issuing biased research]:

    ' investors were "obsessed with the fantasy of Olympian riches", which possibly clouded their judgment.'

  14. Re:Hysterical? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "how was it tragic? a bunch of people that shouldnt have had jobs in the first place got canned."

    A.) That's not for you to judge. Those people that shouldn't have had jobs in the first place hired people rightly qualified for the work. I know several software engineers that were laid off.

    B.) A lot of people being out of work for over a year is tragic no matter how judgement was passed.

    C.) We all would have liked for the economy and job market to remain that strong.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  15. Re:Around this time 2000... by quarkscat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, but you sound vaguely like a Bush proponent. Let me
    beat you about the ears with the following mantra;
    it's made of fine hickory, but was imported from
    the Dominican Republic.

    (1) US Department of State "VISA Express" program
    put unvetted Saudi Arabians on the fast-track into
    the USA -- a Bush initiative.

    (2) Relegated National Security Council Terrorism
    expert Richard Clark to dark closet, while hob-
    nobbing with Taliban representatives in Houston
    and Washington over gas pipeline contracts.

    (3) Cobbled together the slimest threads of intel
    over al-Queda links to Saddam Hussein, and African
    uranium ore (yellow cake) for Saddam's mythical
    WMD as justification for an optional preemptive
    war in Iraq.

    (4) Thwarted the intent of Congress in illegally
    redirecting monies alloted to the conflict in
    Afghanistan ($750 Million USD) in the run-up to
    the war in Iraq.

    (5) Pissed away at least $250 Billion USD in a
    totally optional war in Iraq, with 1,500 dead
    US servicemen, 10,000+ wounded US servicemen,
    and at least 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians (more
    than the total Kurds Saddam gassed).

    (6) Broke international treaties regarding the
    treatment of POWs, and of torturing prisoners,
    with absolutely zero accountability by the Bush
    administration.

    (7) Abridged the US Bill of Rights in the pursuit
    of internal "terrorist" threats, all while leaving
    US borders and seaports and air cargo largely
    insecure. And then boasting about it with the
    upcoming "amnesty" program, and statements in the
    press about "...not IF, but WHEN another terror
    attack would occur..." .

    (8) Drunken-sailor level spending, including the
    war and tax cuts for those that least need it, in
    order to justify a neo-con priority -- cutting
    the legs out from Social Security and Medicare,
    while promoting constitutionally illegal "faith-
    based intiatives" as their replacements.

    I could go on, in much finer detail, but it's
    unnecessary if you have been viewing any news
    besides Fox Network, or not listening only to
    Rush Limbaugh.

  16. Dow Jones by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Dow Jones (Industrial Average) consists of stocks that, on average, pay more dividends than the general market. The index does not reflect accumulated interest payments. On the other hand, it doesn't include "inflation" (loss of purchasing power) either.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  17. Your calculations are incorrect by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Your analysis only factored in closing costs and other costs associated with a singe purchase/sale. Given that the average time for owning a home in the US is 7 years and that your post deeper in this thread assumes that you will always buy a new home when you sell, you need to go back and re-run your numbers with 4 sales and 5 purchases. That's more than $39K that you need to spend on transaction costs - it would actually be substantially more if you buy a more expensive house each time, as you say you are doing.

    Furthermore, you are totally ignoring the opportunity cost of investing in a house. It looks like you are assuming a $37K down payment. If you rent for those 30 years, you could apply that $37K to some other investment. Let's say you invest in an index fund in order to avoid taxes until you sell. At an average annual return of 11%, you will have $847K at the end of 30 years, and that's just from saving the down payment! If you are paying more on your mortgage and expenses than you would be on rent for an equivalent place, then you also need to consider the opportunity cost of that money as if you had invested it in something with an optimal return. It will easily beat out the equity appreciation of $864K that you listed, and that is even before you factor in the multiple transaction costs that you left out.

    All of this is using your questionable assumption that your equity appreciation will out pace inflation. Even so, renting is a pretty good deal. However, if your home appreciates at less than inflation, the numbers get much, much worse for owning. Historically low interest rates have allowed people to pay more for homes that they could in the past, but now that the Fed is returning interest rates to a neutral level at a measured pace, people are already unable to secure the same magnitude of loans they could not too long ago. Every single indicator points to prices being overinflated (which a fall in prices would resolve): historically low interest rates, historically high P/E ratios (purchase/rent), historically low savings, percent increase in median income falling (way) short of percent increase in median house prices, first time buyers priced out of the market, etc.

  18. Wrong. by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A mortgage is basically the best 'debt' you will ever have in your life. It is not like other debt because of two simple facts:

    - It is remarkably low interest (below prime rate right now with many banks)

    - The interest itself is tax-deductable, at least in the US.

    On top of this, the alternative - paying rent - is markedly worse. You are basically flushing money down the toilet, with a 0% return.

    The parent was indeed giving good advice. Your advice, however, is not prudent. Every year you delay getting a mortgage, is a full year of rent you could have been using to pay down one. Even if the interest rate on the mortgage was 15% or 20% (which it isn't), and even if there was no tax deduction (which there is), it would still be in your interest to get a mortgage.

    1. Re:Wrong. by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not quite. He's advising paying massive interest and taxes to live in your own property, because the alternative is to pay someone else's massive interest and taxes in order to live in their property. No-one EVER, except out of charity, charges less rent than the property costs to own outright.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
  19. Re:Increasing Population Needs Housing by zzyzx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The price of your house might double, but when the price of everything else you buy doubles too, you're back where you started."

    Not true.

    Let's say that there is 100% inflation in the next 10 years. My house is worth a lot more on paper, but more importantly, my salary has gone up but my mortgage is fixed; it then consumes a lower percentage of my salary, giving me more money to buy toys.

    The other advantage of an illusionary increase is that it gives you more equity. I put 0% down on my home, but recent price increases let me have 20% equity in it on paper. This let me refinance to a lower rate. My loan is for the same amount as it was, but my payments are $350 a month less.