Conservation Department, Planning and Development Division, Lantern Slide Shows, 1908-1939 - Ar-04503014


Source: http://digitalarchives.wa.gov/Record/View/CE61D9F9FEE72230F0862927BD55ADC1
Do you have comments, questions, or transcription errors?
Give us Feedback
Date Added Name Comment
11/30/2015 Nicola Perhaps Grim or Chichagofinance could take a look at the following paper, which aruges against the housing bubble, based on cash flows from rent.[edit]My initial impressions:Given the lax lending in the mortgage market, the required rate of return is likely to be higher than 6% used in the paper. A mere 3% increase in home prices is going to cause many borrowers to be upside down, given the leverage used. I just don't see how a soft landing can work, even given this data.1:10 AM”You don't need to dive into the details of the paper to question its findings. Its conclusions are so fundamentally flawed, I think most interested parties can merely dismiss the paper as irrelevant.That said, I reviewed the paper and believe your comment about its core model undercharging for risk is valid.Among other items, they have conveniently sidestepped the issue of the expenses associated with owning. In a sense, their model is a Frankenstein [i.e. bastardization of finance], that uses data and cash streams from the renter's market, prices from a purchaser's market, and pulling risk from a financial instruments market.On page 17, they put forward the assumption that the buyer never sells, and that I would point out that is a convenient way to avoid noting that relative to their cost of capital, future home prices are by definition NPV negative. Read: even at their unrealistically low 6% after-tax rate hurdle rate, long-term real estate appreciation is lower than 6%, so the cost of carry is negative.I am also uncomfortable with the fact that they seem to have spent more time peer reviewing this paper with financial types rather than real estate types. Even then, the financial types are CFP’s, not CFA’s, Economist, Phd’s etc. As someone who has dealt with economists, finance professionals, the academic community as well as the financial planning profession, I would characterize CFP’s on the whole more applied than theoretical, and certainly less analytically rigorous, so I wouldn’t be parading the review of 27 CFP’s as some gold standard. However, do not confuse this comment with the fact that in my profession, a CFP is a valuable and important credential. It is just that in this theoretical discussion, the author’s are miscasting the utility of experts in applied thinking.My last comment is that GIGO [garbage-in garbage-out] comes to mind. What is the source of their market data? The idea that they remotely make various assessments about different regional markets is laughable at best, or downright reckless at worst. Performing data analysis while needing to put forward assumptions about the functioning of “Yahoo! Maps” ugh…..Put this one in the circular file, but market sure to shred it first, so no one is tempted to pull it out.chicago
11/30/2015 Nicola Perhaps Grim or Chichagofinance could take a look at the following paper, which aruges against the housing bubble, based on cash flows from rent.[edit]My initial impressions:Given the lax lending in the mortgage market, the required rate of return is likely to be higher than 6% used in the paper. A mere 3% increase in home prices is going to cause many borrowers to be upside down, given the leverage used. I just don't see how a soft landing can work, even given this data.1:10 AM”You don't need to dive into the details of the paper to question its findings. Its conclusions are so fundamentally flawed, I think most interested parties can merely dismiss the paper as irrelevant.That said, I reviewed the paper and believe your comment about its core model undercharging for risk is valid.Among other items, they have conveniently sidestepped the issue of the expenses associated with owning. In a sense, their model is a Frankenstein [i.e. bastardization of finance], that uses data and cash streams from the renter's market, prices from a purchaser's market, and pulling risk from a financial instruments market.On page 17, they put forward the assumption that the buyer never sells, and that I would point out that is a convenient way to avoid noting that relative to their cost of capital, future home prices are by definition NPV negative. Read: even at their unrealistically low 6% after-tax rate hurdle rate, long-term real estate appreciation is lower than 6%, so the cost of carry is negative.I am also uncomfortable with the fact that they seem to have spent more time peer reviewing this paper with financial types rather than real estate types. Even then, the financial types are CFP’s, not CFA’s, Economist, Phd’s etc. As someone who has dealt with economists, finance professionals, the academic community as well as the financial planning profession, I would characterize CFP’s on the whole more applied than theoretical, and certainly less analytically rigorous, so I wouldn’t be parading the review of 27 CFP’s as some gold standard. However, do not confuse this comment with the fact that in my profession, a CFP is a valuable and important credential. It is just that in this theoretical discussion, the author’s are miscasting the utility of experts in applied thinking.My last comment is that GIGO [garbage-in garbage-out] comes to mind. What is the source of their market data? The idea that they remotely make various assessments about different regional markets is laughable at best, or downright reckless at worst. Performing data analysis while needing to put forward assumptions about the functioning of “Yahoo! Maps” ugh…..Put this one in the circular file, but market sure to shred it first, so no one is tempted to pull it out.chicago
11/30/2015 Nicola Perhaps Grim or Chichagofinance could take a look at the following paper, which aruges against the housing bubble, based on cash flows from rent.[edit]My initial impressions:Given the lax lending in the mortgage market, the required rate of return is likely to be higher than 6% used in the paper. A mere 3% increase in home prices is going to cause many borrowers to be upside down, given the leverage used. I just don't see how a soft landing can work, even given this data.1:10 AM”You don't need to dive into the details of the paper to question its findings. Its conclusions are so fundamentally flawed, I think most interested parties can merely dismiss the paper as irrelevant.That said, I reviewed the paper and believe your comment about its core model undercharging for risk is valid.Among other items, they have conveniently sidestepped the issue of the expenses associated with owning. In a sense, their model is a Frankenstein [i.e. bastardization of finance], that uses data and cash streams from the renter's market, prices from a purchaser's market, and pulling risk from a financial instruments market.On page 17, they put forward the assumption that the buyer never sells, and that I would point out that is a convenient way to avoid noting that relative to their cost of capital, future home prices are by definition NPV negative. Read: even at their unrealistically low 6% after-tax rate hurdle rate, long-term real estate appreciation is lower than 6%, so the cost of carry is negative.I am also uncomfortable with the fact that they seem to have spent more time peer reviewing this paper with financial types rather than real estate types. Even then, the financial types are CFP’s, not CFA’s, Economist, Phd’s etc. As someone who has dealt with economists, finance professionals, the academic community as well as the financial planning profession, I would characterize CFP’s on the whole more applied than theoretical, and certainly less analytically rigorous, so I wouldn’t be parading the review of 27 CFP’s as some gold standard. However, do not confuse this comment with the fact that in my profession, a CFP is a valuable and important credential. It is just that in this theoretical discussion, the author’s are miscasting the utility of experts in applied thinking.My last comment is that GIGO [garbage-in garbage-out] comes to mind. What is the source of their market data? The idea that they remotely make various assessments about different regional markets is laughable at best, or downright reckless at worst. Performing data analysis while needing to put forward assumptions about the functioning of “Yahoo! Maps” ugh…..Put this one in the circular file, but market sure to shred it first, so no one is tempted to pull it out.chicago
Introduction:
This collection includes 256 glass lantern slides taken between 1908 and 1939, and commissioned or purchased by the Washington State Department of Conservation and Development.

These hand painted glass lantern slides were used in slide shows to promote tourism and immigration in Washington. Images show the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam, the Columbia Basin Project, the benefits of irrigation and water projects to Washington State, building projects, hotels, garages, dams, fishing and recreational activities, transportation facilities, shipwrecks, and scenic views of forests and rivers. The majority of images in this collection were taken by Asahel Curtis, Charles A. Libby and Sons, or Delong & Drake.

The Department of Conservation and Development was created in 1921 to encompass the divisions of Reclamation, Forestry, Water Resources, Geology, and the Columbia Basin Survey. Over the years, various divisions were added or transferred to other departments until the Department of Conservation and Development was abolished in 1967. The Department of Ecology was created in 1970, taking over many of the functions of the former Department of Conservation, and thereby acquiring the lantern slide shows. This collection was transferred by the Department of Ecology to the Washington State Archives in 1979.

These images are open for research.

All records are in English.

Digitization and cataloging by Mary Hammer.

Citation:
Preferred Citation: [Title of image], [date], [photographer if known], Conservation Department, Planning and Development Division, Lantern Slide Shows, 1908-1939, Washington State Archives, Digital Archives, http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov, [date accessed].

Source: Conservation Department, Planning and Development Division, Lantern Slide Shows, 1908-1939, Washington State Archives.

Original records located at the Washington State Archives, Olympia, WA.

To obtain a copy of the full record, or to learn about related records, contact the State Archives at (360) 586-1492, or email research@sos.wa.gov.
Please see citation for order information
Images are available for FREE online. Select from the available images below.
File size: 1.1 MB
Estimated download time: 56 Kbps Modem (2 Minutes 48 Seconds)
256 Kbps DSL (36 Seconds)
1.5 Mbps Cable/DSL (6 Seconds)