[carlsbadworker]

I wanted to check out PF Chang the other day and was told the wait is two hours. So at least PFCB is making money.

[carlsbadworker]

I wanted to check out PF Chang the other day and was told the wait is two hours. So at least PFCB is making money.

[carlsbadworker]

I wanted to check out PF Chang the other day and was told the wait is two hours. So at least PFCB is making money.

[carlsbadworker]

I wanted to check out PF Chang the other day and was told the wait is two hours. So at least PFCB is making money.

[carlsbadworker]

I wanted to check out PF Chang the other day and was told the wait is two hours. So at least PFCB is making money.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=HLS]Landlords will lower rents to keep a place rented, competition becomes brutal for a limited amount of avaialble money. Lower prices encourages people to spend, as long as they have money.
[/quote]

Actually, I start to believe that the lower rents will bring the next leg down for real estate. I don’t think the SFH owners will suffer most though. I think the apartment owners are really screwed. You see, they couldn’t really lower their rents, because:
1. Their existing tenants will be unhappy paying a much higher price.
2. If they plan to sell it, a lower rental price will make the valuation much worse.
So they can only offer free months promotions but that attract exactly the worst of worst from the shrinking tenant pool.

Anyone knows some apartment company stocks that I can short with?

By the way, let me know when the day of 4% mortgage rate comes, given the other thread was saying that the congress is trying to offer assistances ($5K) for refinance, I could use some government bailout as well.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=HLS]Landlords will lower rents to keep a place rented, competition becomes brutal for a limited amount of avaialble money. Lower prices encourages people to spend, as long as they have money.
[/quote]

Actually, I start to believe that the lower rents will bring the next leg down for real estate. I don’t think the SFH owners will suffer most though. I think the apartment owners are really screwed. You see, they couldn’t really lower their rents, because:
1. Their existing tenants will be unhappy paying a much higher price.
2. If they plan to sell it, a lower rental price will make the valuation much worse.
So they can only offer free months promotions but that attract exactly the worst of worst from the shrinking tenant pool.

Anyone knows some apartment company stocks that I can short with?

By the way, let me know when the day of 4% mortgage rate comes, given the other thread was saying that the congress is trying to offer assistances ($5K) for refinance, I could use some government bailout as well.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=HLS]Landlords will lower rents to keep a place rented, competition becomes brutal for a limited amount of avaialble money. Lower prices encourages people to spend, as long as they have money.
[/quote]

Actually, I start to believe that the lower rents will bring the next leg down for real estate. I don’t think the SFH owners will suffer most though. I think the apartment owners are really screwed. You see, they couldn’t really lower their rents, because:
1. Their existing tenants will be unhappy paying a much higher price.
2. If they plan to sell it, a lower rental price will make the valuation much worse.
So they can only offer free months promotions but that attract exactly the worst of worst from the shrinking tenant pool.

Anyone knows some apartment company stocks that I can short with?

By the way, let me know when the day of 4% mortgage rate comes, given the other thread was saying that the congress is trying to offer assistances ($5K) for refinance, I could use some government bailout as well.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=HLS]Landlords will lower rents to keep a place rented, competition becomes brutal for a limited amount of avaialble money. Lower prices encourages people to spend, as long as they have money.
[/quote]

Actually, I start to believe that the lower rents will bring the next leg down for real estate. I don’t think the SFH owners will suffer most though. I think the apartment owners are really screwed. You see, they couldn’t really lower their rents, because:
1. Their existing tenants will be unhappy paying a much higher price.
2. If they plan to sell it, a lower rental price will make the valuation much worse.
So they can only offer free months promotions but that attract exactly the worst of worst from the shrinking tenant pool.

Anyone knows some apartment company stocks that I can short with?

By the way, let me know when the day of 4% mortgage rate comes, given the other thread was saying that the congress is trying to offer assistances ($5K) for refinance, I could use some government bailout as well.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=HLS]Landlords will lower rents to keep a place rented, competition becomes brutal for a limited amount of avaialble money. Lower prices encourages people to spend, as long as they have money.
[/quote]

Actually, I start to believe that the lower rents will bring the next leg down for real estate. I don’t think the SFH owners will suffer most though. I think the apartment owners are really screwed. You see, they couldn’t really lower their rents, because:
1. Their existing tenants will be unhappy paying a much higher price.
2. If they plan to sell it, a lower rental price will make the valuation much worse.
So they can only offer free months promotions but that attract exactly the worst of worst from the shrinking tenant pool.

Anyone knows some apartment company stocks that I can short with?

By the way, let me know when the day of 4% mortgage rate comes, given the other thread was saying that the congress is trying to offer assistances ($5K) for refinance, I could use some government bailout as well.

[carlsbadworker]

Basically, we know there are a lot of people in US now who can’t sell their houses, because they’ve leveraged themselves for more than the house will sell for on the open market. They have negative networth and selected not to honor their liability, but our government decides that they need a bailout.

So it only makes sense to extend it to the banks, which too leverage themsevles for more than their assets will sell for on the open market. They too will have negative networth and contemplate not honoring their liability(i.e. declare bankrupcy) so they too need a bailout. Only in this case, the government marks up their asset but in the home owner’s case, the government lowers their liability.

My point wasn’t that it’s right. My point was the government has been doing all the nonsense for a while already, it is unlikely the law makers will repent now, given the banks have more lobbying power than the FBs who got the loan remodification.

[carlsbadworker]

Basically, we know there are a lot of people in US now who can’t sell their houses, because they’ve leveraged themselves for more than the house will sell for on the open market. They have negative networth and selected not to honor their liability, but our government decides that they need a bailout.

So it only makes sense to extend it to the banks, which too leverage themsevles for more than their assets will sell for on the open market. They too will have negative networth and contemplate not honoring their liability(i.e. declare bankrupcy) so they too need a bailout. Only in this case, the government marks up their asset but in the home owner’s case, the government lowers their liability.

My point wasn’t that it’s right. My point was the government has been doing all the nonsense for a while already, it is unlikely the law makers will repent now, given the banks have more lobbying power than the FBs who got the loan remodification.

[carlsbadworker]

Basically, we know there are a lot of people in US now who can’t sell their houses, because they’ve leveraged themselves for more than the house will sell for on the open market. They have negative networth and selected not to honor their liability, but our government decides that they need a bailout.

So it only makes sense to extend it to the banks, which too leverage themsevles for more than their assets will sell for on the open market. They too will have negative networth and contemplate not honoring their liability(i.e. declare bankrupcy) so they too need a bailout. Only in this case, the government marks up their asset but in the home owner’s case, the government lowers their liability.

My point wasn’t that it’s right. My point was the government has been doing all the nonsense for a while already, it is unlikely the law makers will repent now, given the banks have more lobbying power than the FBs who got the loan remodification.

[carlsbadworker]

Basically, we know there are a lot of people in US now who can’t sell their houses, because they’ve leveraged themselves for more than the house will sell for on the open market. They have negative networth and selected not to honor their liability, but our government decides that they need a bailout.

So it only makes sense to extend it to the banks, which too leverage themsevles for more than their assets will sell for on the open market. They too will have negative networth and contemplate not honoring their liability(i.e. declare bankrupcy) so they too need a bailout. Only in this case, the government marks up their asset but in the home owner’s case, the government lowers their liability.

My point wasn’t that it’s right. My point was the government has been doing all the nonsense for a while already, it is unlikely the law makers will repent now, given the banks have more lobbying power than the FBs who got the loan remodification.

[carlsbadworker]

Basically, we know there are a lot of people in US now who can’t sell their houses, because they’ve leveraged themselves for more than the house will sell for on the open market. They have negative networth and selected not to honor their liability, but our government decides that they need a bailout.

So it only makes sense to extend it to the banks, which too leverage themsevles for more than their assets will sell for on the open market. They too will have negative networth and contemplate not honoring their liability(i.e. declare bankrupcy) so they too need a bailout. Only in this case, the government marks up their asset but in the home owner’s case, the government lowers their liability.

My point wasn’t that it’s right. My point was the government has been doing all the nonsense for a while already, it is unlikely the law makers will repent now, given the banks have more lobbying power than the FBs who got the loan remodification.

[Author]

Posts