Twin Peaks

"When something goes wrong
I'm the first to admit it
The first to ad-mit it
And the last one to know"

Paul Simon, Something So Right



So, a while back in 2007, I predicted that Vancouver housing prices would peak in 2008 - and they did, as the graph below shows (click to enlarge). But somewhat implicit in my prediction was the notion that they wouldn't reach a higher peak in 2010, which they also did.



I've heard of the V-shaped and W-shaped recession, but as the inventory of houses for sale climbs in a pattern reminiscent of 2008 (see chart below) I wonder about chances of an M-shaped housing bubble...



Note: Chart was originally posted by commenter vibe in the forum at Vancouver Condo Info. REBGV = Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver.

2010 NHL Playoff Predictions, Round 2

Round 1 Review:

Washington vs. Montreal

Pick: Capitals in 4.
Actual: Montreal in 7.

Well, I didn't get that right, although it really wasn't far from being a Capitals sweep, and I did express concern that Washington wasn't a good playoff team...


New Jersey vs. Philadelphia

Pick: Devils in 7.
Actual: Flyers in 5

Wrong again, although I did say this was the most likely upset in the East.


Buffalo v. Boston

Pick: Sabres in 5.
Actual: Bruins in 6.

Probably the most wrong pick I had. I really thought Buffalo would play better D, but they didn't.

Pittsburgh vs. Ottawa

Pick: Penguins in 6.
Actual: Penguins in 6

Correct, played out as expected.

San Jose vs. Colorado

Pick: Sharks in 5.
Actual: Sharks in 6

Pretty much right, Avs were lucky to win 2.

Chicago vs. Nashville

Pick: Hawks in 6.
Actual: Hawks in 6

Right again.

Vancouver vs. Los Angeles

Pick: Canucks in 6
Actual: Canucks in 6

Phoenix vs. Detroit


Pick: Detroit in 6.
Actual: Detroit in 7

So 5 for 8, I nailed the West but missed all the upsets in the East (in fact I thought upsets were more likely in the West!)

------------
Round 2 Predictions:

Pittsburgh vs. Montreal

Pittsburgh in 6


Boston vs. Philadelphia

Who knows, but I'll take Boston in 7.

San Jose vs. Detroit

OK, game 1 already happened, but I'm still taking Detroit in 7, despite their loss in game 1.

Chicago vs. Vancouver

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the Hawks have too much depth on forward for the Canucks D. Key for the Canucks will be if they can avoid getting pinned in their own end and giving up goals any time they are ahead in the series.

Pick: Hawks in 6.

2010 NHL Playoff Predictions

I wrote a post with first round playoff predictions last year and ended up easily winning my playoff pool so superstition alone dictates that I do it again this year. If I need a rationalization, it is sometimes helpful to go through the mental exercise of taking my thoughts and putting them in writing.

Washington vs. Montreal

I'm not convinced that Washington is a great playoff team, with shaky goaltending and suspect team commitment to defense. Still, they only lost in game 7 to the eventual champions from Pittsburgh last year and it would be hard to argue that they're not both better and hungrier this time around.

Pick: Capitals in 4.


New Jersey vs. Philadelphia

Maybe it's just that last year's loss to Carolina (probably the best series in the whole playoffs)is still fresh in my mind, but I just don't feel enthusiastic about the Devil's chances. Or maybe it's just too many years of playoff failure that is holding me back. Still, the Flyers are no all-star team, and their goaltending situation is absurd. Plus, the addition of Kovalchuk gives the Devils some more depth on attack.

They're not playing Carolina, so I'll take the Devils in 7.


Buffalo v. Boston

How will Boston get the puck past Miller without Savard in the lineup? Answer - they won't.

Sabres in 5.


Pittsburgh vs. Ottawa

The Senators actually gave up 13 more goals then they scored this year - expect that trend to continue in the first round. Pittsburgh didn't impress all that much in the regular season, but they didn't impress much in the regular season last year either, now - did they?

With Malkin coming into form and Crosby seemingly always on form, the Penguins will once again be hard to beat.

Penguins in 6.

It feels like a cop-out to take all the favourites, but that seems to be just how it is this year in the East. The Flyers are the best bet for an upset, in my view.


San Jose vs. Colorado

Luckily for San Jose, Colorado is no Anaheim.

Sharks in 5.


Chicago vs. Nashville

Nashville will go down battling, as always, with one of the best defense cores in the league (Hamhuis in particular is underrated), but the Hawks simply have too big an edge in the talent department.

Hawks in 6.


Vancouver vs. Los Angeles

I don't have the same optimism regarding the Canucks' chances as I did last year. The defense lacks depth and experience and is prone to injury, and Luongo has been inconsistent (at best) this year.

Also, Canucks fans sure will be sick of Doughty and Jack Johnson by the end if this series - with a tough D, the kings are one of the tougher lower ranked team in the playoffs in my opinion. Still, for all that, I think the Canucks will pull it out before getting run over in round 2.

Canucks in 6

Phoenix vs. Detroit


Poor Phoenix, you put up 107 points and the reward is a first round matchup against Detroit? Phoenix is very tough defensively, but Detroit will beat them on the power play.

Detroit in 6.

Upsets seem more likely (as always) in the West vs. the East, but the only 'upset' I predicted was Detroit beating Phoenix. Hopefully we'll get some surprises (without hurting my pool team or the Canucks too much...)

Credibility Watch

One of the good/bad things about blogs is that it's all in writing, so you can often go back and see what was written in the past by various people. Occasionally I like to take advantage of this and cherry pick some recent event, where I was right in some prediction and others were wrong, in order to highlight my superior predictive abilities.

For instance, here’s a recent post by Andrew Coyne regarding the polls leading up to the B.C. election – the post was written before the B.C. election took place, so now that the election has happened, we can assess whose interpretation of the polls was more accurate:

Andrew wrote:

I dunno. This makes no sense to me:

"Halfway through the B.C. election campaign the race for the leadership is tighter than ever. The BC Liberals and New Democrat parties are separated by just three percentage points, according to a new Angus Reid Strategies/CTV poll.
The online survey of 822 voters found the BC Liberals are holding top spot with 42 per cent, with the opposing NDP not far behind at 39 per cent. The Green Party remains in third place with 13 per cent."

The same poll shows that, by a wide margin, the public thinks the economy is the number one issue. And that, by a margin of three to one – 48% to 16 — they pick the Liberals’ Gordon Campbell as the best person to handle it. Nearly two to one — 40% to 23% — also prefer Campbell as “best premier.” Yet the Liberals are only three points ahead?

Going into the campaign, the Liberals enjoyed a 17-point lead. Nothing much has happened since. The NDP have run a scattershot, unfocused campaign. And suddenly they’re only three points behind?
Colour me skeptical.

And then in the comments:

dan in van says:

Smacks of a push-pull that was manipulated, whether accidentally or purposely, to ensure that Liberal forces are motivated to vote. It is the only poll in a few years that have shown this kind of narrow margin. But while my theory may sound a little conspiracy-like, in any event I take this with a long tall one.

Critical Reasoning says:

I never trust online polls like this one. Here’s the justification by CTV/Angus Reid:
Our polls are conducted online, and not over the telephone or through face-to-face interviews. The rationale behind this approach is simple. Canada is now one of the most connected countries in the world, and Internet access has spread to every key demographic group in the country, including seniors and people with below average household incomes.

Conversely, telephone-based research has been greatly affected by declining response rates and the absence of land-lines in the homes of many younger Canadians.
Codswallop! Online polls are only used because they’re cheap. Almost any online poll is more likely to magnify the young, left-leaning “can’t be bothered to vote” demographic at the expense of the older, more conservative demographic who always vote, but only venture online to check email.

Derek Pearce says:

Heh. Where can I online-vote that Unicorns are the prettiest of all the fabled creatures? Actually I bet that you’d get a better than 19 out of 20 result for that, so it’s a bad example. What was the methodology of survey even if online? If people had the option of clicking one party or another from a public site and meandering off, then the NDP will be over-represented by zealots who did their quick-click duty and then went web-surfing elsewhere, while those who cared stayed to answer more in depth questions will more accurately reflect the public opinion of Campbell.

bigcitylib says:

A response to the speeding scandal, which arrived plop in the middle of the polling period?

As for AR’s online polls, I’ve complained alot about them but during the last Federal they did as well as (maybe better than) anyone else’s.

catherine says:

These results are only a small shift from the last Angus Reid poll (done in March which put the Liberals at 43 and NDP at 37) and the small shifts could be fluctuations in small numbers (MOE) or due to the speeding scandals.

Mike G says:

Well, no one ever accused British Columbians of being sensible.
Here’s the thing, though: I would contribute to those statistics. I think Gordon Campbell is probably a better administrator than Carole James. I am not entirely happy with either platform; the economy is certainly the biggest challenge ahead, but I don’t actually think that the provincial government can do much about it. I’m very unhappy with a lot of the things that the Liberal government here has done over its current tenure, I think there’s been a lot of hamhandedness and ignorance on their part, and I think a bit of shakeup could be good for them. On top of that, my local MLA, Shane SImpson (NDP, Vancouver-Hastings) seems to be just fine and I see no need to boot him.

Dale says:

The 17 point lead poll is a Mustel poll. This company was started by a current MLA for the Liberals. If any poll has a tendency to bias it is that one.
The A. Reid poll is very close to Robbins Reasearch poll wich uses telephone polling. You can complain about one but it is backed up by the other. The BC election will be won or lost in each riding. Liberals are strong is some but the NDP are equally strong in others. Who ever gets the vote out will win.

Declan says:

Libs won by 4% last election. Seems pretty plausible to me that things haven’t changed much since then. I guess we’ll see soon enough.

---


Election result:
Liberals get 46.02% of the vote, NDP gets 42.06%, Liberals have a margin of victory of almost exactly 4%.

Credibility Increase:
Angus Reid, Me, Catherine, bigcitylib, Dale and Mike G.

Credibility Decrease:
Mustel, Andrew Coyne, dan in Van, critical reasoning and Derek Pearce

That is all. Just trying to enforce a little accountability around here...

Idle Speculation

Back in July of 2007 I predicted that, "prices will peak in Vancouver before end of 2008."

What's my point? None really, just that I was right.

Anyways, while I'm on the topic of speculation, here's an amusing marketing flyer release from a local real estate developer (via Vancouver Condo Info).

From the flyer:

"$150 million portfolio of prime completed real estate located throughout the Lower Mainland will be sold, at prices far below market value."

...

"What are the homes being discounted??
Aggressive speculators lined up overnight at launches to scoop up prime units and then could not flip them before completion. Many could not afford to complete and lost 15% deposits. Much of the available inventory is made up of these homes."

Ouch.

Question Answered

After the federal election, I asked, "Can the Conservatives keep chasing the Quebec nationalists without alienating their rural anglophone supporters in the rest of the country? Or will they refocus on the 905 region which could also provide them enough extra seats to form a majority?"

I guess we know the answer to that one!

On the other hand, in the same post I predicted that the Liberals, "seem likely to elect Ignatieff as their new leader and swing to the right in an attempt to regain the ground they have lost to the Conservatives over the last two elections."

Which is going as predicted so far, and I suspect having Ignatieff in charge of the LIberals will make it harder for the Conservatives to make inroads into the 905 area.

CAtO vs. the Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail, before the election, endorsing Harper:

"Indeed, the most important characteristic Mr. Harper has shown over 33 months in office is a capacity to grow. There is no reason to think he won't continue along the same trajectory if re-elected — a good thing, too, since there is much more for him to learn.

Instead of carping about a dysfunctional Parliament, for which he holds much responsibility, Mr. Harper should throw out his previous playbook and try making the institution work. It would mean displaying the confidence to operate outside his comfort zone of near-absolute control, but it is a mission built for a true conservative. And, no, Senate reform is no substitute for getting the House of Commons operating well."

Me, before the election, not endorsing the Conservative party:

"in my opinion, the Conservative party wishes to remake this country into one much more similar to the U.S., as opposed to the 'second tier socialistic country' (in Harper's words) that it is now (in their opinion).

But in pursuing this goal the Conservatives see the traditional institutions, the checks and balances as things that stand in their way. So, far from wanting to reinforce the strength of Canada's independent institutions that check the government's power and to work within the system, the Conservative's want to weaken those institutions and remove anything that prevents them from remaking the system as they wish.

In government we have seen the Conservative party at war with the media, at war with Elections Canada, in a battle with the nuclear energy safety regulator and further Conservative government will lead, in my opinion, to more attacks on and more weakening of, the independent institutions that provide a check on the government."

So here we are, faced with a serious economic crisis, and Harper decided that it was a good time to try and weaken some of the institutions (unions and opposition parties) that keep the Conservatives from unfettered rule, and now, when he has obviously lost the confidence of the House of Commons as a result, Harper vows to 'use all legal means' to resist bowing to the will of the majority of our elected representatives, and we see newspapers articles seriously considering having Harper fire the Governor General rather than give up the reins of power.

I'd score this CAtO 1, Globe 0.


--
On the other hand, when I wrote that, "Harper has a de facto majority for at least the next two years since nobody will want to trigger another election." I wasn't predicting that Harper's second vote would be a confidence motion on bankrupting all three opposition parties, so I missed that one.