Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 6, 2010 at 12:29 PM in reply to: OT: Best weather and place to raise kids on east coast? #637010
carli
ParticipantThis thread reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with one of the top guys at a very prominent executive search firm, who used to have to recruit people from all over the country for very senior positions with Fortune 500 companies. The conversation has always stuck with me.
He was trying to recruit for a key position on my team, and we were deciding if the person would be based on the east or west coast. He told me most people could be convinced to move to either coast for the right career opportunity. But, he told me that if we happened to find the perfect candidate in Minneapolis, he/she would probably be difficult to convince to leave their city. I thought he was joking at first, but he said that throughout his 20+ year career, when he found a perfect candidate for a position, if he/she was from Minneapolis and still living there, it didn’t matter how much compensation or career advancement or whatever other enticements were involved, people from Minneapolis were the most difficult ones to lure to another location. Probably wouldn’t apply to the whole state of Minnesota, but it was pretty interesting, especially because he was so emphatic and mentioned that it happened several times.
Both of us marveled at the idea, neither ever having lived in Minneapolis, but since that day, I’ve always been thinking I’d like to check it out a little more, tough winters and all.
ParticipantThis thread reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with one of the top guys at a very prominent executive search firm, who used to have to recruit people from all over the country for very senior positions with Fortune 500 companies. The conversation has always stuck with me.
He was trying to recruit for a key position on my team, and we were deciding if the person would be based on the east or west coast. He told me most people could be convinced to move to either coast for the right career opportunity. But, he told me that if we happened to find the perfect candidate in Minneapolis, he/she would probably be difficult to convince to leave their city. I thought he was joking at first, but he said that throughout his 20+ year career, when he found a perfect candidate for a position, if he/she was from Minneapolis and still living there, it didn’t matter how much compensation or career advancement or whatever other enticements were involved, people from Minneapolis were the most difficult ones to lure to another location. Probably wouldn’t apply to the whole state of Minnesota, but it was pretty interesting, especially because he was so emphatic and mentioned that it happened several times.
Both of us marveled at the idea, neither ever having lived in Minneapolis, but since that day, I’ve always been thinking I’d like to check it out a little more, tough winters and all.
ParticipantThis thread reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with one of the top guys at a very prominent executive search firm, who used to have to recruit people from all over the country for very senior positions with Fortune 500 companies. The conversation has always stuck with me.
He was trying to recruit for a key position on my team, and we were deciding if the person would be based on the east or west coast. He told me most people could be convinced to move to either coast for the right career opportunity. But, he told me that if we happened to find the perfect candidate in Minneapolis, he/she would probably be difficult to convince to leave their city. I thought he was joking at first, but he said that throughout his 20+ year career, when he found a perfect candidate for a position, if he/she was from Minneapolis and still living there, it didn’t matter how much compensation or career advancement or whatever other enticements were involved, people from Minneapolis were the most difficult ones to lure to another location. Probably wouldn’t apply to the whole state of Minnesota, but it was pretty interesting, especially because he was so emphatic and mentioned that it happened several times.
Both of us marveled at the idea, neither ever having lived in Minneapolis, but since that day, I’ve always been thinking I’d like to check it out a little more, tough winters and all.
ParticipantThis thread reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with one of the top guys at a very prominent executive search firm, who used to have to recruit people from all over the country for very senior positions with Fortune 500 companies. The conversation has always stuck with me.
He was trying to recruit for a key position on my team, and we were deciding if the person would be based on the east or west coast. He told me most people could be convinced to move to either coast for the right career opportunity. But, he told me that if we happened to find the perfect candidate in Minneapolis, he/she would probably be difficult to convince to leave their city. I thought he was joking at first, but he said that throughout his 20+ year career, when he found a perfect candidate for a position, if he/she was from Minneapolis and still living there, it didn’t matter how much compensation or career advancement or whatever other enticements were involved, people from Minneapolis were the most difficult ones to lure to another location. Probably wouldn’t apply to the whole state of Minnesota, but it was pretty interesting, especially because he was so emphatic and mentioned that it happened several times.
Both of us marveled at the idea, neither ever having lived in Minneapolis, but since that day, I’ve always been thinking I’d like to check it out a little more, tough winters and all.
ParticipantThis thread reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with one of the top guys at a very prominent executive search firm, who used to have to recruit people from all over the country for very senior positions with Fortune 500 companies. The conversation has always stuck with me.
He was trying to recruit for a key position on my team, and we were deciding if the person would be based on the east or west coast. He told me most people could be convinced to move to either coast for the right career opportunity. But, he told me that if we happened to find the perfect candidate in Minneapolis, he/she would probably be difficult to convince to leave their city. I thought he was joking at first, but he said that throughout his 20+ year career, when he found a perfect candidate for a position, if he/she was from Minneapolis and still living there, it didn’t matter how much compensation or career advancement or whatever other enticements were involved, people from Minneapolis were the most difficult ones to lure to another location. Probably wouldn’t apply to the whole state of Minnesota, but it was pretty interesting, especially because he was so emphatic and mentioned that it happened several times.
Both of us marveled at the idea, neither ever having lived in Minneapolis, but since that day, I’ve always been thinking I’d like to check it out a little more, tough winters and all.
ParticipantThat’s true, we didn’t have a construction loan and used our own cash proceeds from the sale of our prior house (which wasn’t meant to be a flip but ended up being a very profitable deal).
Even without a construction loan and a very small mortgage, relative to the property value, we ran into some crazy issues with our bank. When we bought our house (and we were very up front with the bank’s mortgage guy that it was being bought as a fixer and we were going to tear it down completely), we only financed about 40% of the bank-appraised value of the property, yet the bank had a FIT when they found out we were tearing down the house.
It happened b/c I called them to see how we should list them on our course of construction insurance policy, and somehow the message fell into the hands of a VP of Risk Mgmt, and she called us and demanded that we immediately put a halt to our demolition plans, stating that the house represented their collateral so we couldn’t touch it before our construction plans and permits were seen and approved by the bank’s construction committee. We were shocked especially because, according to the bank’s own appraisal done 3 months prior, it stated that 90% of the property value was in the LAND and 10% was in the old delapidated house. When we pointed this out to them, plus reminded them that we were using 100% of our own cash to actually increase their collateral at no risk to them and make it even more valuable, they still wouldn’t budge. We finally had to go up several levels to a Sr VP who saw the light, but their VP of Risk Management (or something like that) was totally irrational about it and even at the end of the project, she made sure that they re-appraised the property. Surprise, surpise, the bank’s collateral dramatically increases in value when the owners sink their own cash in to tear it down and then double the square footage.
Of course, we understood the premise behind not being able to knock down a mortgaged house without bank approval, but in our case, it was irrational for so many reasons, yet the bank couldn’t think clearly about it.
Just goes to show how rational thinking goes out the window in times like this. The bank’s underwriting pendulum was swinging in one direction the year before our remodel, and the year of our remodel, it was swinging wildly back in the other direction with no human being intervening to make more rational decisions during either period of time. Crazy.
ParticipantThat’s true, we didn’t have a construction loan and used our own cash proceeds from the sale of our prior house (which wasn’t meant to be a flip but ended up being a very profitable deal).
Even without a construction loan and a very small mortgage, relative to the property value, we ran into some crazy issues with our bank. When we bought our house (and we were very up front with the bank’s mortgage guy that it was being bought as a fixer and we were going to tear it down completely), we only financed about 40% of the bank-appraised value of the property, yet the bank had a FIT when they found out we were tearing down the house.
It happened b/c I called them to see how we should list them on our course of construction insurance policy, and somehow the message fell into the hands of a VP of Risk Mgmt, and she called us and demanded that we immediately put a halt to our demolition plans, stating that the house represented their collateral so we couldn’t touch it before our construction plans and permits were seen and approved by the bank’s construction committee. We were shocked especially because, according to the bank’s own appraisal done 3 months prior, it stated that 90% of the property value was in the LAND and 10% was in the old delapidated house. When we pointed this out to them, plus reminded them that we were using 100% of our own cash to actually increase their collateral at no risk to them and make it even more valuable, they still wouldn’t budge. We finally had to go up several levels to a Sr VP who saw the light, but their VP of Risk Management (or something like that) was totally irrational about it and even at the end of the project, she made sure that they re-appraised the property. Surprise, surpise, the bank’s collateral dramatically increases in value when the owners sink their own cash in to tear it down and then double the square footage.
Of course, we understood the premise behind not being able to knock down a mortgaged house without bank approval, but in our case, it was irrational for so many reasons, yet the bank couldn’t think clearly about it.
Just goes to show how rational thinking goes out the window in times like this. The bank’s underwriting pendulum was swinging in one direction the year before our remodel, and the year of our remodel, it was swinging wildly back in the other direction with no human being intervening to make more rational decisions during either period of time. Crazy.
ParticipantThat’s true, we didn’t have a construction loan and used our own cash proceeds from the sale of our prior house (which wasn’t meant to be a flip but ended up being a very profitable deal).
Even without a construction loan and a very small mortgage, relative to the property value, we ran into some crazy issues with our bank. When we bought our house (and we were very up front with the bank’s mortgage guy that it was being bought as a fixer and we were going to tear it down completely), we only financed about 40% of the bank-appraised value of the property, yet the bank had a FIT when they found out we were tearing down the house.
It happened b/c I called them to see how we should list them on our course of construction insurance policy, and somehow the message fell into the hands of a VP of Risk Mgmt, and she called us and demanded that we immediately put a halt to our demolition plans, stating that the house represented their collateral so we couldn’t touch it before our construction plans and permits were seen and approved by the bank’s construction committee. We were shocked especially because, according to the bank’s own appraisal done 3 months prior, it stated that 90% of the property value was in the LAND and 10% was in the old delapidated house. When we pointed this out to them, plus reminded them that we were using 100% of our own cash to actually increase their collateral at no risk to them and make it even more valuable, they still wouldn’t budge. We finally had to go up several levels to a Sr VP who saw the light, but their VP of Risk Management (or something like that) was totally irrational about it and even at the end of the project, she made sure that they re-appraised the property. Surprise, surpise, the bank’s collateral dramatically increases in value when the owners sink their own cash in to tear it down and then double the square footage.
Of course, we understood the premise behind not being able to knock down a mortgaged house without bank approval, but in our case, it was irrational for so many reasons, yet the bank couldn’t think clearly about it.
Just goes to show how rational thinking goes out the window in times like this. The bank’s underwriting pendulum was swinging in one direction the year before our remodel, and the year of our remodel, it was swinging wildly back in the other direction with no human being intervening to make more rational decisions during either period of time. Crazy.
ParticipantThat’s true, we didn’t have a construction loan and used our own cash proceeds from the sale of our prior house (which wasn’t meant to be a flip but ended up being a very profitable deal).
Even without a construction loan and a very small mortgage, relative to the property value, we ran into some crazy issues with our bank. When we bought our house (and we were very up front with the bank’s mortgage guy that it was being bought as a fixer and we were going to tear it down completely), we only financed about 40% of the bank-appraised value of the property, yet the bank had a FIT when they found out we were tearing down the house.
It happened b/c I called them to see how we should list them on our course of construction insurance policy, and somehow the message fell into the hands of a VP of Risk Mgmt, and she called us and demanded that we immediately put a halt to our demolition plans, stating that the house represented their collateral so we couldn’t touch it before our construction plans and permits were seen and approved by the bank’s construction committee. We were shocked especially because, according to the bank’s own appraisal done 3 months prior, it stated that 90% of the property value was in the LAND and 10% was in the old delapidated house. When we pointed this out to them, plus reminded them that we were using 100% of our own cash to actually increase their collateral at no risk to them and make it even more valuable, they still wouldn’t budge. We finally had to go up several levels to a Sr VP who saw the light, but their VP of Risk Management (or something like that) was totally irrational about it and even at the end of the project, she made sure that they re-appraised the property. Surprise, surpise, the bank’s collateral dramatically increases in value when the owners sink their own cash in to tear it down and then double the square footage.
Of course, we understood the premise behind not being able to knock down a mortgaged house without bank approval, but in our case, it was irrational for so many reasons, yet the bank couldn’t think clearly about it.
Just goes to show how rational thinking goes out the window in times like this. The bank’s underwriting pendulum was swinging in one direction the year before our remodel, and the year of our remodel, it was swinging wildly back in the other direction with no human being intervening to make more rational decisions during either period of time. Crazy.
ParticipantThat’s true, we didn’t have a construction loan and used our own cash proceeds from the sale of our prior house (which wasn’t meant to be a flip but ended up being a very profitable deal).
Even without a construction loan and a very small mortgage, relative to the property value, we ran into some crazy issues with our bank. When we bought our house (and we were very up front with the bank’s mortgage guy that it was being bought as a fixer and we were going to tear it down completely), we only financed about 40% of the bank-appraised value of the property, yet the bank had a FIT when they found out we were tearing down the house.
It happened b/c I called them to see how we should list them on our course of construction insurance policy, and somehow the message fell into the hands of a VP of Risk Mgmt, and she called us and demanded that we immediately put a halt to our demolition plans, stating that the house represented their collateral so we couldn’t touch it before our construction plans and permits were seen and approved by the bank’s construction committee. We were shocked especially because, according to the bank’s own appraisal done 3 months prior, it stated that 90% of the property value was in the LAND and 10% was in the old delapidated house. When we pointed this out to them, plus reminded them that we were using 100% of our own cash to actually increase their collateral at no risk to them and make it even more valuable, they still wouldn’t budge. We finally had to go up several levels to a Sr VP who saw the light, but their VP of Risk Management (or something like that) was totally irrational about it and even at the end of the project, she made sure that they re-appraised the property. Surprise, surpise, the bank’s collateral dramatically increases in value when the owners sink their own cash in to tear it down and then double the square footage.
Of course, we understood the premise behind not being able to knock down a mortgaged house without bank approval, but in our case, it was irrational for so many reasons, yet the bank couldn’t think clearly about it.
Just goes to show how rational thinking goes out the window in times like this. The bank’s underwriting pendulum was swinging in one direction the year before our remodel, and the year of our remodel, it was swinging wildly back in the other direction with no human being intervening to make more rational decisions during either period of time. Crazy.
ParticipantOne more thing – I should’ve mentioned that although ours was not technically new construction, our project involved taking the house completely down, then adding almost 2000 square feet and pouring new foundation. All the builders we spoke with said that it was actually more costly than doing a completely new build. Also we’re not in Santaluz, but in an area that’s notorious for tough design/coastal review.
ParticipantOne more thing – I should’ve mentioned that although ours was not technically new construction, our project involved taking the house completely down, then adding almost 2000 square feet and pouring new foundation. All the builders we spoke with said that it was actually more costly than doing a completely new build. Also we’re not in Santaluz, but in an area that’s notorious for tough design/coastal review.
ParticipantOne more thing – I should’ve mentioned that although ours was not technically new construction, our project involved taking the house completely down, then adding almost 2000 square feet and pouring new foundation. All the builders we spoke with said that it was actually more costly than doing a completely new build. Also we’re not in Santaluz, but in an area that’s notorious for tough design/coastal review.
ParticipantOne more thing – I should’ve mentioned that although ours was not technically new construction, our project involved taking the house completely down, then adding almost 2000 square feet and pouring new foundation. All the builders we spoke with said that it was actually more costly than doing a completely new build. Also we’re not in Santaluz, but in an area that’s notorious for tough design/coastal review.
-
AuthorPosts