[quote=patientrenter]davelj, my budget for a home is less than 15% of my net worth. Why? Because I am so conservative that the other 85% of my savings is “spoken for” – all used to pay for all my other living expenses. I try to live within my investment income. Earned income goes to increase my investments, which produce more income, and that allows me to spend more (eventually). So it’s actually very hard for me to substantially increase my material living standards. Getting a few hundred thousand for free in a legally sanctioned, government-supported, scam that I am paying for anyway could dramatically increase my total housing budget.
I will have to skip describing the regulatory bodies I must give background info to. I am reasonably known in my segment of my industry, and I enjoy the anonymity of this board.
Valuing acquisition targets: I just couldn’t imagine our CEO caring if my credit score was good when I gave him the estimated value for an acquisition target, so that’s why I raised that example. Bad attempt at humor. I don’t normally do acquisition valuations, but this one would have been on the front page of the WSJ if Mr Geithner had approved it. (I liked this decision of his, since I didn’t think we should buy the target.)
Anyway, I want to remain anonymous, so I will have to quit giving any more info that could be clues. I still would buy a house using borrowed money provided by a hare-brained govt scheme to support home prices, as long as it was easy and I had no liability. The recent events really have altered my view of the prevailing morality in our population and their institutions, and what I should do about it. All that quick dumping of the moral hazard issue, in ways that just happened to work nicely for the people doing the dumping? Well, since they don’t much care about moral hazard, I know they won’t mind my little addition to it.[/quote]
I enjoy the anonymity of this board as well. In fact, Rich is the only person on this board who knows my identity as we have lunch on a semi-regular basis. Having said that, it’s hard to believe that merely discussing one’s regulatory obligations (as I have) would tip off anyone to your identity as the world of finance is quite large. More oddly, I just don’t know of any position in finance that would require one to “directly file detailed background information” to “dozens” of regulatory bodies. I know the former CEO of a $21 billion asset bank with insurance and securities operations in 32 states and he didn’t have to directly file file detailed background information with anywhere close to “dozens” of regulatory bodies (although companies beneath his holding company did). Anyhow, I was just looking forward to understanding what kind of position would require a level of regulatory scrutiny several factors greater than anything I’ve ever heard of. And from someone who acknowledges that he doesn’t “have a high public profile in the companies” he works for.
Regarding the valuation of acquisition targets… you said yourself that “the people who know me at my company use me for valuing acquisition targets.” Which is pretty straightforward. Now you’re saying that you “don’t normally do acquisition valuations.” But despite this fact you recently advised the CEO of your company on the value of an acquisition target that “would have been on the front page of the WSJ if Mr Geithner had approved it.” Further, on the one hand you say that you “don’t have a high profile at the companies you work for,” yet on the other hand you’re advising the CEO of your company (singular this time) on an acquisition that would be on the front page of the WSJ. You’ll have to pardon me if all of these statements taken together are more than a touch confusing.
And then, again, you’re saying that you’ve got a background-sensitive, very senior position in a large financial services company that pays quite well, and you’ve managed to save up a substantial sum of money (kudos, by the way)…. yet… you’d be willing to go through the headache and hassle of entering into a transaction in which you’d maybe, possibly get a few hundred thousand dollar bailout break. Maybe I’m alone here, but this just doesn’t make any sense to me for someone in your position, no matter how it’s spun or rationalized.
Obviously, you’re more than welcome to whatever degree of anonymity you choose to maintain here. I support that notion 100%. But having said that, I gotta tell you that your narrative doesn’t hold up well to even modest scrutiny. There are a few rather considerable inconsistencies and contradictions. Although there’s no law against that. It’s just a bit odd, that’s all.
