- This topic has 108 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
Eugene.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 31, 2007 at 12:29 PM #93792October 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM #93751
JWM in SD
ParticipantAssets – Liabilities = Owners Equity
Enough Said……
October 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM #93785ParticipantAssets – Liabilities = Owners Equity
Enough Said……
October 31, 2007 at 12:33 PM #93795ParticipantAssets – Liabilities = Owners Equity
Enough Said……
October 31, 2007 at 12:39 PM #93754Participant“Sears is doing well”
If Sears is only doing well because of their RE holdings then I would short their stock immediately after selling my long holdings. Second, define doing well as a result of RE??? How does that affect their P&L or Cashflow? That is primarily reflected on their balance sheet.
October 31, 2007 at 12:39 PM #93788Participant“Sears is doing well”
If Sears is only doing well because of their RE holdings then I would short their stock immediately after selling my long holdings. Second, define doing well as a result of RE??? How does that affect their P&L or Cashflow? That is primarily reflected on their balance sheet.
October 31, 2007 at 12:39 PM #93798Participant“Sears is doing well”
If Sears is only doing well because of their RE holdings then I would short their stock immediately after selling my long holdings. Second, define doing well as a result of RE??? How does that affect their P&L or Cashflow? That is primarily reflected on their balance sheet.
October 31, 2007 at 12:58 PM #93775Participant“As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value?”
No, of course not. However, there are investments that will lose less and make more than RE will. Specifically SoCal RE. Why do you think Rich has a new day job???
“Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash?”
Yes, I am. But I’ve also implemented strategies to mitigate that effect. I would not have that opportunity with RE. SoCal RE is depreciating and it’s denominated in USD. Double Whammy.
“My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset.”
Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right? Come on Rustico, you know better. That is the whole reason why this site exists “…Landed Poor”. I’ve long since reconciled with the possibility of never owning again. I hope that doesn’t happen, but I have accepted it if it does. That being said, I will only buy when the price point is acceptable to me and that will be somewhere far south of where it is now. If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future. How many will have credit and cash relative to listing inventory? That is operative question.
October 31, 2007 at 12:58 PM #93810Participant“As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value?”
No, of course not. However, there are investments that will lose less and make more than RE will. Specifically SoCal RE. Why do you think Rich has a new day job???
“Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash?”
Yes, I am. But I’ve also implemented strategies to mitigate that effect. I would not have that opportunity with RE. SoCal RE is depreciating and it’s denominated in USD. Double Whammy.
“My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset.”
Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right? Come on Rustico, you know better. That is the whole reason why this site exists “…Landed Poor”. I’ve long since reconciled with the possibility of never owning again. I hope that doesn’t happen, but I have accepted it if it does. That being said, I will only buy when the price point is acceptable to me and that will be somewhere far south of where it is now. If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future. How many will have credit and cash relative to listing inventory? That is operative question.
October 31, 2007 at 12:58 PM #93818Participant“As if RE deprecitation is the only way a persons portfolio could lose value?”
No, of course not. However, there are investments that will lose less and make more than RE will. Specifically SoCal RE. Why do you think Rich has a new day job???
“Aren’t a few people here pissed because it is going to be hard to support non RE assets and even cash in some scenarios in a crash?”
Yes, I am. But I’ve also implemented strategies to mitigate that effect. I would not have that opportunity with RE. SoCal RE is depreciating and it’s denominated in USD. Double Whammy.
“My mortgage payment is still going to be zero regardless or what happens to my overall net worth and I can have cash flow from it anytime I want, without loosing the asset.”
Ah yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right? Come on Rustico, you know better. That is the whole reason why this site exists “…Landed Poor”. I’ve long since reconciled with the possibility of never owning again. I hope that doesn’t happen, but I have accepted it if it does. That being said, I will only buy when the price point is acceptable to me and that will be somewhere far south of where it is now. If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future. How many will have credit and cash relative to listing inventory? That is operative question.
October 31, 2007 at 2:31 PM #93820NotCranky
ParticipantAh yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right?
I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.
You can own property at any time you want and it might be a good idea. Those possible options don’t appeal to you.
“If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future.”
Not really. Yours truly hasn’t ever flipped anything. The properties I have owned previous to this one were mine and the banks) an average of 6.5 years. A low level, working class widow made a small fortune from one of them. Someone who apparently is not as bright as you or even me, bought the other one in the spring of 05.
This property is a big piece of my overall low net worth,it is also splittable. I might give it to my kids developed when I die. If I could not have afforded it here, I was headed for Arkansas..or Prescott AZ. I could sell it and diversify better but that is going away from my strengths and I like life here.The size of it means I could sell a portion or build a rent-able home or 3.The original house with a smaller property, after the split is worth almost as much as it was before the split and the new lot has a ton of potential. besides, meanwhile, I want more money, but I don’t need it. Maybe I’ll end up living on my assets when I am old,or sooner. I don’t find that so unusual be the assets be a pile of cash, stocks or property or a combination.Soliloquy:
I think the point is , investing in RE for comfort and prestige, before you can really afford it doesn’t work well for capitalization, but that doesn’t begin to describe the potential in the asset class. I see many people on this blog who, at least for the time being, see it in the shallow way .Hopefully some of them, especially those that should(the non rich), will see it differently before they pull the trigger regardless of the timing. Sounds grandiose for a slow starting, small fish like me, I know :).
Best wishes for a bright future.
October 31, 2007 at 2:31 PM #93855ParticipantAh yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right?
I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.
You can own property at any time you want and it might be a good idea. Those possible options don’t appeal to you.
“If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future.”
Not really. Yours truly hasn’t ever flipped anything. The properties I have owned previous to this one were mine and the banks) an average of 6.5 years. A low level, working class widow made a small fortune from one of them. Someone who apparently is not as bright as you or even me, bought the other one in the spring of 05.
This property is a big piece of my overall low net worth,it is also splittable. I might give it to my kids developed when I die. If I could not have afforded it here, I was headed for Arkansas..or Prescott AZ. I could sell it and diversify better but that is going away from my strengths and I like life here.The size of it means I could sell a portion or build a rent-able home or 3.The original house with a smaller property, after the split is worth almost as much as it was before the split and the new lot has a ton of potential. besides, meanwhile, I want more money, but I don’t need it. Maybe I’ll end up living on my assets when I am old,or sooner. I don’t find that so unusual be the assets be a pile of cash, stocks or property or a combination.Soliloquy:
I think the point is , investing in RE for comfort and prestige, before you can really afford it doesn’t work well for capitalization, but that doesn’t begin to describe the potential in the asset class. I see many people on this blog who, at least for the time being, see it in the shallow way .Hopefully some of them, especially those that should(the non rich), will see it differently before they pull the trigger regardless of the timing. Sounds grandiose for a slow starting, small fish like me, I know :).
Best wishes for a bright future.
October 31, 2007 at 2:31 PM #93864ParticipantAh yes, I got mine, now you go get yours right?
I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.
You can own property at any time you want and it might be a good idea. Those possible options don’t appeal to you.
“If your house is a big piece of your nest egg, then you are relying on people like me to buy it sometime in the future.”
Not really. Yours truly hasn’t ever flipped anything. The properties I have owned previous to this one were mine and the banks) an average of 6.5 years. A low level, working class widow made a small fortune from one of them. Someone who apparently is not as bright as you or even me, bought the other one in the spring of 05.
This property is a big piece of my overall low net worth,it is also splittable. I might give it to my kids developed when I die. If I could not have afforded it here, I was headed for Arkansas..or Prescott AZ. I could sell it and diversify better but that is going away from my strengths and I like life here.The size of it means I could sell a portion or build a rent-able home or 3.The original house with a smaller property, after the split is worth almost as much as it was before the split and the new lot has a ton of potential. besides, meanwhile, I want more money, but I don’t need it. Maybe I’ll end up living on my assets when I am old,or sooner. I don’t find that so unusual be the assets be a pile of cash, stocks or property or a combination.Soliloquy:
I think the point is , investing in RE for comfort and prestige, before you can really afford it doesn’t work well for capitalization, but that doesn’t begin to describe the potential in the asset class. I see many people on this blog who, at least for the time being, see it in the shallow way .Hopefully some of them, especially those that should(the non rich), will see it differently before they pull the trigger regardless of the timing. Sounds grandiose for a slow starting, small fish like me, I know :).
Best wishes for a bright future.
October 31, 2007 at 2:55 PM #93838Participant“I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.”
Don’t worry, I know you didn’t really mean it that way…just some verbal sparring on my part.
I shouldn’t have used “you” in my response. I meant that in a generic sense. Not your situation in particular. I’m not biased against RE…I’m biased against inflated, loose credit RE.
The issue is timing Rustico. It is critical when investing in anything. If the initial investment cost is too high, then it won’t make the hurdle rate. THis is what I learned in 2 plus years of analyzing RFQs and RFPs for Borg Warner Automotive.
October 31, 2007 at 2:55 PM #93873Participant“I am not really taking that stance. Just using a personal anecdote to reply to biased anti- Real Estate sentiment. Probably shouldn’t do that.”
Don’t worry, I know you didn’t really mean it that way…just some verbal sparring on my part.
I shouldn’t have used “you” in my response. I meant that in a generic sense. Not your situation in particular. I’m not biased against RE…I’m biased against inflated, loose credit RE.
The issue is timing Rustico. It is critical when investing in anything. If the initial investment cost is too high, then it won’t make the hurdle rate. THis is what I learned in 2 plus years of analyzing RFQs and RFPs for Borg Warner Automotive.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.