intentional overextension

[davelj]

[quote=patientrenter]Well, my personal situation is a bit different, davelj, so maybe I should explain.

I value each few hundred thousand of savings because I am very conservative. For example, I like to limit my spending to less than 10% of my income. My cash reserves cover 10 years of spending, and that’s a low point for me. I have never borrowed, and I have never looked up my credit score, so I don’t know what it is. But I am aware that, since I don’t pay any attention to it, it might be low. (If FedEx screws up a billing, I politely let them know. If they screw it up twice, I just don’t pay. I don’t have time to waste.) When I last moved jobs, I actually required that the offer not be conditional on my credit score. I am well known in my little segment of my industry, so it was not a problem.

I can’t imagine a bad credit score becoming an issue for me, since I don’t have a high (general) public profile at the companies I work for. (They are well-known financial institutions.) I do have to file detailed background information about myself directly with dozens of regulatory bodies, but they don’t ask for my credit score. And the people who know me at my company use me for valuing acquisition targets, so I think they just don’t much care if FedEx disagrees with me on a bill. If I ever had to take on more public responsibilities, I’d just clean up the credit score.

I am curious, what forces you to have a good credit score? Is it reputational – the folks you deal as clients don’t know you that well? Or is it regulatory – bank regulators require it of directors? I may have to pay attention to my score one day, I suppose, so it probably wouldn’t hurt to become aware of what other folks have to do.[/quote]

I’ll go in reverse order.

My “need” isn’t so much for a good credit score, per se, but rather good credit (generically), with the credit score being a representation of such good credit (just to be clear). Part of it is reputational. I know that a certain number of folks will want to do a background check on me – regardless of how well they know me – because that’s just par for the course when you work with folks with a lot of money (institutional or otherwise), particularly in this day and age. It’s a box they have to check, period. Where bank regulators are concerned, they will do a thorough background check on you before you can join a board – which includes a credit report, among many other things. But before you even get to the regulators, the folks on the board of the bank you’re going to join are going to do a background check on you and a low credit score is often a problem. Bank regulators themselves don’t care so much about credit scores, per se, but they do care about bankruptcies. I don’t think you can serve on a bank board if you’ve been involved in a bankruptcy within the last 5 years (or so). But I’ll give you an example of why a bank board cares about the credit rating of its members. I sit on the loan committee of my bank boards and we have minimum FICO requirements (by policy) for loan guarantors. How would it look if I had a 600 FICO and was rejecting loans based on guarantors with 650 FICOs? Not good. Bottom line, maintaining excellent credit pays for itself in the long run for me in a lot of different ways.

Now, the first part of your post is rather confusing to me. You noted that you “have to file detailed background information about myself directly with dozens of regulatory bodies.” Dozens? You’ll have to educate me here. My personal information is filed with FINRA, the SEC, FDIC, Federal Reserve and two state DFIs. That’s six, which is a lot. Vikram Pandit and Ken Lewis maybe have ten, although their COMPANIES certainly file information with dozens of regulators because insurance is regulated at the state level (but they, personally, do not). So, my question is: what is the nature of your business that requires you to file background information with “dozens” of regulators? I’ve been around the block more than a few times and never come across an individual that had to directly file information with more than maybe 8-10 different regulatory bodies (at the max) – because there actually aren’t that many financial services regulatory agencies once you get around state-level issues, which generally apply to companies, as opposed to individuals. (Yes, Registered Reps have to get registered in any states they might do business in, but FINRA handles that through the brokerage firm holding your license – it’s not something the rep files personally). Anyhow, I’m prepared to be enlightened on this issue.

You mentioned that “the people who know me at my company use me for valuing acquisition targets.” I’m curious as to who pays folks $500K+ for merely valuing acquisition targets. The only folks that I know who make $500K+ in finance are either in the C-suite, managing money or they are directly involved in structuring and/or negotiating transactions (that is, investment bankers, brokers or in structured finance). Analysts and associates value acquisition targets. And they don’t get paid anything close to $500K. So I’m a little confused regarding your job description and the pay that’s being ascribed to it. Again, enlighten me.

You noted how conservative you are with your money and that you have 10 years worth of annual living expenses in the bank, which is great. So, we’re probably talking at least $500K+ in cash, just backing into the number based on the information you’ve provided. So, given that you’re “conservative” and have plenty of liquidity, why would you screw around with a hair-brained real estate scheme to default on a mortgage on the CHANCE that you MIGHT gain some benefit of a few hundred thousand dollars? Given your circumstances and “conservatism” it just doesn’t make sense. In fact, it’s the opposite of conservative. Something’s not computing here.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[scaredyclassic]

on the other hand, people are not rational. wealthy people will go nuts and screw others to the wall for relatively pathetic sums. I have worked with successful people who implode on small matters. so, the fact that somebody’s actions don’t necessarily calculate proves, not very much, other than that people do odd things. very odd things. i used to beleive people were fundamentally rational and kind of acted in their own perceived self interest. i just don’t believe that anymore. i think people are crazy

[scaredyclassic]

on the other hand, people are not rational. wealthy people will go nuts and screw others to the wall for relatively pathetic sums. I have worked with successful people who implode on small matters. so, the fact that somebody’s actions don’t necessarily calculate proves, not very much, other than that people do odd things. very odd things. i used to beleive people were fundamentally rational and kind of acted in their own perceived self interest. i just don’t believe that anymore. i think people are crazy

[scaredyclassic]

on the other hand, people are not rational. wealthy people will go nuts and screw others to the wall for relatively pathetic sums. I have worked with successful people who implode on small matters. so, the fact that somebody’s actions don’t necessarily calculate proves, not very much, other than that people do odd things. very odd things. i used to beleive people were fundamentally rational and kind of acted in their own perceived self interest. i just don’t believe that anymore. i think people are crazy

[scaredyclassic]

on the other hand, people are not rational. wealthy people will go nuts and screw others to the wall for relatively pathetic sums. I have worked with successful people who implode on small matters. so, the fact that somebody’s actions don’t necessarily calculate proves, not very much, other than that people do odd things. very odd things. i used to beleive people were fundamentally rational and kind of acted in their own perceived self interest. i just don’t believe that anymore. i think people are crazy

[Author]

Posts