OT: Real Estate/Foreclosure article

[sdcellar]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=XBoxBoy]Wonder if Piggys have higher math illiteracy than the average person.
[/quote]

I doubt it.

I would expect that people drawn to the quantitative nature of this site would have lower math illiteracy than average.

Interesting article. Maybe we should pst a poll with the question What is 300 divided by two?[/quote]I think it’s 3( )0?

[briansd1]

I always felt that buyers should have mandatory education on Discounted Cash Flow Analysis because that’s what a mortgage is.

That’s especially relevant with exotic mortgages.

If you don’t understand time value of money, it’s impossible to understand exotic loans such as negative amortization, pick a pay, and teaser rate loans.

It’s funny how the industry sold the most sophisticated products to the least qualified and least educated customers.

The more interesting question is how Wall Street with their PhDs, math wizards, and super-duper computers was not able to assess the risk accurately.

[briansd1]

I always felt that buyers should have mandatory education on Discounted Cash Flow Analysis because that’s what a mortgage is.

That’s especially relevant with exotic mortgages.

If you don’t understand time value of money, it’s impossible to understand exotic loans such as negative amortization, pick a pay, and teaser rate loans.

It’s funny how the industry sold the most sophisticated products to the least qualified and least educated customers.

The more interesting question is how Wall Street with their PhDs, math wizards, and super-duper computers was not able to assess the risk accurately.

[briansd1]

I always felt that buyers should have mandatory education on Discounted Cash Flow Analysis because that’s what a mortgage is.

That’s especially relevant with exotic mortgages.

If you don’t understand time value of money, it’s impossible to understand exotic loans such as negative amortization, pick a pay, and teaser rate loans.

It’s funny how the industry sold the most sophisticated products to the least qualified and least educated customers.

The more interesting question is how Wall Street with their PhDs, math wizards, and super-duper computers was not able to assess the risk accurately.

[briansd1]

I always felt that buyers should have mandatory education on Discounted Cash Flow Analysis because that’s what a mortgage is.

That’s especially relevant with exotic mortgages.

If you don’t understand time value of money, it’s impossible to understand exotic loans such as negative amortization, pick a pay, and teaser rate loans.

It’s funny how the industry sold the most sophisticated products to the least qualified and least educated customers.

The more interesting question is how Wall Street with their PhDs, math wizards, and super-duper computers was not able to assess the risk accurately.

[briansd1]

I always felt that buyers should have mandatory education on Discounted Cash Flow Analysis because that’s what a mortgage is.

That’s especially relevant with exotic mortgages.

If you don’t understand time value of money, it’s impossible to understand exotic loans such as negative amortization, pick a pay, and teaser rate loans.

It’s funny how the industry sold the most sophisticated products to the least qualified and least educated customers.

The more interesting question is how Wall Street with their PhDs, math wizards, and super-duper computers was not able to assess the risk accurately.

[sdcellar]

As I understand it, the PhDs, math wizards and super duper computers (all one and the same, really) failed to look at property appreciation over a long enough (and distinct enough) period(s) of time.

Having worked with PhD/mathwizard/superdupercomputers, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. You’d be stunned how little common sense, much less scientfic method, can be applied by those who think they (and arguably should) know better.

Garbage in, garbage out. It’s an old axiom, but probably should be “explored” during the job interview process and at variuos junctures throughout said scientist’s career.

[sdcellar]

As I understand it, the PhDs, math wizards and super duper computers (all one and the same, really) failed to look at property appreciation over a long enough (and distinct enough) period(s) of time.

Having worked with PhD/mathwizard/superdupercomputers, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. You’d be stunned how little common sense, much less scientfic method, can be applied by those who think they (and arguably should) know better.

Garbage in, garbage out. It’s an old axiom, but probably should be “explored” during the job interview process and at variuos junctures throughout said scientist’s career.

[sdcellar]

As I understand it, the PhDs, math wizards and super duper computers (all one and the same, really) failed to look at property appreciation over a long enough (and distinct enough) period(s) of time.

Having worked with PhD/mathwizard/superdupercomputers, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. You’d be stunned how little common sense, much less scientfic method, can be applied by those who think they (and arguably should) know better.

Garbage in, garbage out. It’s an old axiom, but probably should be “explored” during the job interview process and at variuos junctures throughout said scientist’s career.

[sdcellar]

As I understand it, the PhDs, math wizards and super duper computers (all one and the same, really) failed to look at property appreciation over a long enough (and distinct enough) period(s) of time.

Having worked with PhD/mathwizard/superdupercomputers, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. You’d be stunned how little common sense, much less scientfic method, can be applied by those who think they (and arguably should) know better.

Garbage in, garbage out. It’s an old axiom, but probably should be “explored” during the job interview process and at variuos junctures throughout said scientist’s career.

[sdcellar]

As I understand it, the PhDs, math wizards and super duper computers (all one and the same, really) failed to look at property appreciation over a long enough (and distinct enough) period(s) of time.

Having worked with PhD/mathwizard/superdupercomputers, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. You’d be stunned how little common sense, much less scientfic method, can be applied by those who think they (and arguably should) know better.

Garbage in, garbage out. It’s an old axiom, but probably should be “explored” during the job interview process and at variuos junctures throughout said scientist’s career.

[Coronita]

[quote=sdcellar]
I doubt it.
Interesting article. Maybe we should pst a poll with the question What is 300 divided by two?[/quote]

e^(5.010635294)

[Coronita]

[quote=sdcellar]
I doubt it.
Interesting article. Maybe we should pst a poll with the question What is 300 divided by two?[/quote]

e^(5.010635294)

[Coronita]

[quote=sdcellar]
I doubt it.
Interesting article. Maybe we should pst a poll with the question What is 300 divided by two?[/quote]

e^(5.010635294)

[Coronita]

[quote=sdcellar]
I doubt it.
Interesting article. Maybe we should pst a poll with the question What is 300 divided by two?[/quote]

e^(5.010635294)

[Author]

Posts