Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CoronitaParticipantAlex,
My mistake this morning. I thought the original post was referring to the RP off of Camino Del Sur instead of Del Sur, Del Sur…
To my knowledge there are no section 8's in del sur. There is some in the 92129 off of Camino Del Sur.
CoronitaParticipantAlex,
If I were a doctor, I'd say you have a medium case of sour grapes.
I'd gladly pick up a home like this in Del Sur as a rental if falls below $500k. This area imho is up and coming, which would be relatively decent commute either to RB or Sorrento Valley. The only thing is I don't like how there is a Section 8 housing development around the neighborhood.
CoronitaParticipantFinger pointing is all over the place. There are millions of people who are blindly/mindlessly contributing to retirement accounts, flooding Wall Street with cash, under the guise of "security for their future"
Most people have no clue what they are doing JUST LIKE
So I'm just curious. Folk(s) that are saying that contributing blindly to retirement accounts is dumb, or playing with the market is dumb, what are you specifically doing to improve your odds of coming out ok? Putting cash in a mattress, or buying $700+/ounce gold? Putting into foreign currencies?
Not meaning this as an attack, but I see here a lot of "that's a bad idea, this is a bad bad, blindly doing this, blindly doing that…" So for the folks that think they aren't "blind", what specifically is your strategy? Please, let's play the "three blind mice, see how they run game".
My take is in the short term big boys are going to try to squeeze the hell out of shorts to pump up the market. Then when people start jumping in on long positions, the big boys are going to dump on all the longs. But that's just the cynical side of me talking. The big boys can endure massive losses either way before average joe blinks.
CoronitaParticipantFWIW:
my relatives up there tell me that nice parts of Torrance is getting hit pretty hard, especially the townhome market. The relative disparity between torrance and pv/hermosa was not that different during the peak. That in itself is an indication of what's to come.
Personally, Torrance is a great area with decent schools. When prices are reasonable, I wouldn't mind picking up a rental or two. A few relatives own attached homes nearby industry parks. They have a steady stream of renters from Japanese companies that work here on rotation. Corporate pays the rent. They've been doing this for the past 20 years….The entry point to do this however is still not there, because the condo market still needs to fall some.
No movement in Palos Verdes, Hermosa yet.
CoronitaParticipantI'm not just talking about savings accounts FLU. The policies of the Fed and the Govt have pushed otherwise conservative investors towards increasingly risky alternatives since the interest rates have been so low. Like it or not, equities are going to crash eventually as well as the dollar. It is just a matter of time until it happens. I don't even think diversification will protect against what is coming down the road.
I don't disagree that the equities market will crash some day. The question is when. No one knows. But one thing that probably will happen…As the "conservative" instruments make less and less sense, average joe will be putting things into high risk alternatives. That in itself is going to create another bubble, at which point it's really time to get out.
CoronitaParticipantimho, savers are always punished by inflation.
I guess that why the "advice" I've always gotten is that when you are young(er), you really shouldn't be putting a majority of your stuff in a low yield bank account/conservative investment. More so in this environment. Plus as a younger person, you have a much longer time to recover should any controlled risk you take goes south. Of course this "advice" usually comes from a mutual fund "advisor" or "broker "that's trying to sell a hot stock tip or mutual fund, but I guess at least in the spirit of things, I don't disagree with that. The only hard part is finding the other things that does better than the low yielding bank account consistently. The other hard part is one's own comfort in dealing with situations when you're wrong and you take a loss. No ones right all the time.
The story would be different for older folks in the late 40ies, 50ies, or 60ies+, where in that case you have considerably less time to recover, so having more things in cash/cd's to me would make sense, because you can't afford the risk toward your years of retirement.
CoronitaParticipantyeah, because it's ingle-"hood".
I doubt you'll find a 30% drop in an area like palos verdes or hermosa beach (yet)
September 20, 2007 at 9:58 AM in reply to: Chinese Government Freezes Some Prices in Move to Contain Inflation #85287CoronitaParticipantBased on the report, the Chinese government controls prices of "cooking oil, sugar, gasoline, tobacco, salt, coal and fertilizer", plus whatever food items that the new order will cover. It doesn't control EVERYTHING. Prices of stocks and commodities such as gold or copper are spared. If I had money to invest, I would invest in Chinese companies working in environmental protection, pharmaceutical research, or renewable energy fields. China has to clean up its land and rivers, provide medicines for its billions of citizens, and stop draining the oil and coal resources around the world.
I was using it as just one of many examples. Here's about one that I'm all too familar with concerning Shanghai real estate back in 2005. Unlike in the U.S., a lot of rules regulations are set at the province level, and set sporadically.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-6-6/29327.html
In an attempt to stabilize rising real estate prices, China instated a new real estate policy recently. However, the market responded negatively; both the trading volume and trading prices fell dramatically.
The Chinese government announced in May that starting June 1, a tax would be placed on all housing sold if the owner hadn’t lived in for more than two years. For non-residential housing inhabited for more than two years, the government also placed a business tax on the difference between the sale price and the original purchase price.
On June 1, 2005, the first day China implemented its policy, the average trading price for real estate in Shanghai dropped by 1,426 yuan (US$172.30) per square meters to 5,884 yuan (US$710.93).
The trading volume for new commodity housing was 251, only half of what it was the day before the new policy was implemented, according to Shanghai’s official real estate transaction data. In general, trading volume was only one half what it was usually.President Hu Jintao and Premiere Wen Jiabao have realized that rapidly rising housing prices have caused serious threats to overall economic stability. High-level officials in the State Council recently issued a notice about stabilizing real estate prices. It gave eight directives, explicitly ordering local governments and relevant departments to keep real estate prices from rising too quickly.
Despite their fear of a drop in housing prices, they were also afraid of weakening the already struggling state-owned bank system, said Free Radio Asia commentator Liang Jing. Liang said that Hu and Wen hesitated and did not take any firm measures regarding the continuing rising housing prices because they are afraid that big changes in real estate prices will deliver an unbearable blow to the already weak state-owned banks, according to his article “High Real Estate Price Challenges Hu and Wen’s Governing Capability.”
Because house developers and home-buyers in mainland China rely heavily on loans from state-owned banks, a sudden drop in realty prices will worsen the crisis for state-owned banks. Approximately 50 percent of the total capital in China’s state-owned banks is invested in the real estate market. Any sharp decline in the real estate market will hit the banking system directly.
According to the Chinese government’s regulation, starting June 1, transaction taxes will be exempt for ordinary housing only if a property ownership certificate has been obtained or contract taxes have been paid for more than two years. On June 1, the Beijing Construction Committee published the tax at 5 percent for Beijing and 5.5 percent for Chongqing, according to a June 1 report from Jinghua Times.
Real estate agents in mainland China estimate that the taxes may cause housing prices in Shanghai to drop 20 percent or more. Yi Xianrong, Chief of the Banking and Finance Division, the Research Institute of Banking and Finance under Chinese Academy of Social Sciences believes that the real estate price will drop in Shanghai, and he will not be surprised to see a drop by as much as 50%, due to the big bubble in Shanghai housing market, reported the latest edition of China News Weekly.
High-end market sales are where most of the price difference will be felt. Infrastructure for mid range housing will protect prices from falling and the lower end market will not be effected.
Prices had been dropping throughout the month of May as real estate speculators reduced their prices to make sales before the June 1 deadline. Just before June 1, long lines piled up outside real estate transaction centers across Shanghai. In the month of May after the policy was announced the real estate price in Shanghai and Hangzhou city dropped nearly 10 percent, and the resale of homes dropped 50 percent.
This is not the first time that real estate prices in Shanghai have risen and then sharply fallen.
In 1993 when Vice Premier Zhu Rongji took the first macro-control measures, the real estate market froze An old Taiwan businessman recalled that the price for housing in Hongqiao and Gubei suddenly dropped from $US3,000 per square meter to $1,500. Not only were there sharp price cuts, but nobody would buy the discounted houses.
Now investors from Taiwan, Hong Kong and South East Asia who want to buy real estates in Shanghai cannot help but wonder if there will be another real estate price collapse.
—–
There chinese stock market is in uncharterred territory. I wouldn't be surprise if we start seeing more sporadic controls and rules to curb the runup.
CoronitaParticipantHoly crap, is it just me or is the aticle linked in the original post one of the most biased piles of poop that I've seen in a long time.
democratic-led congress
democrat asking for help
goes on and onTotally ignores any relevant factual information that doesn't support an assault on the Democrats. WTF???
Consider this – the Republicans today filibustered the Troop Rest bill, preventing our nation's finest from being able to enjoy the same treatment that our veterans of every other war were offered. So King George gets to treat our soldiers like slaves, because, well – they are King George's personal slaves!
WTF???
No disagreements from me that republicans shove a lot of crap too.
CoronitaParticipantForgot to mention stockstradr,
since this somehow ended in personal attack… the only "data" i need to decide what is my better financial interest is the 1040 returns for the past 12+ years.
Now, I know what you're about to say too. "It surprises me that americans would sheepishly care about a 'tax' break that means a refund of a couple of hundred of dollars, or how people would care about estate taxes, or investment breaks etc when they don't have much.. They're so blind blind blah blah blah", except that these things are relevant for folks on the $300k+ range household income. Democrats love to play robin hood with these folks. They won't take it from the really rich to give it to the rest. They always take it upper midle range of household.
All my 1040 "data" indicates that I have faired far better over the last to terms than before.
Now, the next argument I've heard also is , those that make more should pay more. Yeah, I heard that one to, which goes back to my tag line. Those that make more shouldn't have to pick up all the slack for overleveraged FF irresponsible folks. Or if you want to take more, take it from the really rich which wouldn't make a dent for them. Sorry, I despise the FFL asses.
I love it when the gov gridlocks, because no extremes occur. One uniform party gov, means less likely chance of gridlock. In the current climate, this would to me mean a bailout never seen before at the expense of responsible taxpayers.
The fact that some of these bills have made it past the house is starting to be of concern itself. You would think there would be delays, and lots of questions. A lot of folks here think that can't possibly be a bailout. There can't possibly be drastic actions. But the "facts" seem to indicate we are in unchartered territory right now. Extremes are possible.
CoronitaParticipantstockstradr,
Ouch 🙂
Well, let's see how the democrats do this time around ok? No point in arguing this. We have the next 4 years, and let's see where things go from here, shall we? I don't see how the democrats or any part for that matter is really going to be any better this time around.
Was it Clinton and democrats and conservative spending or was it progress in a tech that eventually imploded at the time the repubs took office. We can argue all day who's fault it was. What's the point?
Read my lines. Government wastes money. Period. Bailout is eminent if one party controls government. People here has voiced frustration about bailouts (I personally don't care). How can anyone think a bailout isn't going to happen with a all democrat gov?
My fat_asS_lazy_ness means hiding my assets and sheltering before major tax changes, such as cap gains limits etc, so uncle sam doesn't do the robin hood thing and distribute it to overleveraged, quick/buck hopeful fat fuck lazy american that was way over his head now screaming for a bailout.
September 19, 2007 at 9:06 PM in reply to: Looks likethe short squeeze is continuing this morning. #85249CoronitaParticipantJust curious. How great does your portfolio look if you index it to the Euro?
Seriously. My conservative portions are running with huge gains, and my aggressive international stocks are all anywhere from 40-400%. I am smart enough to know that this is not due to my considerable jeenius. When I index it to the Euro, the portfolio looks more sane and less like a pre-bust Nasdaq stock.
For my CDs, I refuse to check their value versus the Euro…Makes me wonder if NOW isn't such a bad time to buy a house. If massive inflation really hits, a $500k loan at 6.5% might look like peanuts. Anybody got some old Jimmy Carter for Prez pins, that I can borrow?
-one muggle
A good portion of my individual holdings are essentially tech adrs for european companies. Tech bubble+ european markets in general for me has been pretty decent versus the euro. Although I would say in hindsight, buying a euro ETF would have been a safer option. I only think if I were to do this now, it's too late. Ironically, other holdings are domestic tech that have rallied over the past 2 years and are beating indexes. Also, there I do have a mixture of oil companies that unfortunately I sold a portion of two weeks ago. Oh well.
My vanguard indexes are trailing my personal portfolio at this point. I would ascertain this so far to luck. At the same time though, I was buying stock when the down was below 13,000 despite my better judgement. And As such, I've been selling here and there to take some money of the table, only to put it back on the table when/if the market tanks in the next couple weeks. It's really just speculative right now for me. And it's really more of a game than anything else.
Regarding….
Makes me wonder if NOW isn't such a bad time to buy a house. If massive inflation really hits, a $500k loan at 6.5% might look like peanuts. Anybody got some old Jimmy Carter for Prez pins, that I can borrow?
You know. I have to say, a $3800/month mortgage for me really isn't that bad these days 🙂 Either my income is holding better than I thought (seriously doubt that), or I've just gotten use to it 🙁 One thing for sure, a home in Shanghai, china will probably cost a hell of a lot more more than this home here in SD when and if the Yuan floats.
CoronitaParticipantDemocrats are more fiscally responsible in government spending. The greatest expansion of our debts all occured during the Republican presidents. What happened to the small government that Republicans keep saying?
Also, don't blame the governemnt, blame youself or anyone who keep spending and piling up debts.
Btw, San Diego is still a Republican district and its housing is damn expansive :). lol
No offense,
But i call bullsh!t on that one. Neither parties are fiscally responsible. Different agenda, same sh!t. Republicans spend on on the military. Democrats spend on welfare and the poor. And both have their fair share for porkbarrelling.
I'm not blaming the government for anything. The problem is when average american is knee deep in trouble, neither party will just give the middle finger and say it's your own problem. IF one party controls government, there will be a bailout, at the expense the small minority of folks that was responsible (me included). Doesn't matter which party. The only chance of no action, is if government is totally incompetent and cant push policy through, which occurs if you have a mixture of reps and democrats in government that can't agree.
BTW: i vote across party lines, for what makes sense in the situation. I'm not tied to either party's idealogy, because that's all it is. ideas.
CoronitaParticipantDemocrats are more responsible for this housing mess.
1. They back current public school education system. They oppose vouchers.
2. Their political base tends to be in high price metropolitan areas
3. They like a nanny approach to government
I wouldn't say #2. Democrats tend to back the middle class, with the exception of the DLC which gets backing from corp america (no different then the republicans, just different corp sponsors :))
The mess we are in isn't because Republican issue or Democrat issue (it's not party lines issues). The issue is that the government was too effective with a Republican controlled house, senate, and president. When you get a domination across the board from one party, the system lacks checks and balances, and things actually get pushed through, for better or worse.
I don't think the climate will change moving forward either. We now have a democratic house and senate. And probably soon to be democratic pres. The hardest hit will be the upper middle class, as I expect the Democrats start taxing this class more, in an attempt to balance the lower middle class and poor. The rich never gets touched either party. Expect big government oversight with lots of bailouts.
BTW: my definition of upper middle class would lump your engineeer making $100k/year. Not that much in today's standard, but well above the middle class.Really rich households will always find shelters and loopholes, regardless of which party is in control.
An all democratic government would mean another 4 more bad years at least of screwed up policies that don't many any economic sense, because you'll have this party be pushing it's agenda. For this reason, regardless of how bad the republican candidate is going to be, I'm going to vote for him/her. Because the government needs party balance for the economy to do well. If you don't like the idea of bailouts and big government, it's probably in your best interst to vote for a president that isn't the same party as the house and senate too. Either way, it's going to be a long shot for a republican president, short of have some scandal that breaks out in the democrat party.
I have more fear about what damage the an all democrat government will do compared to inflation, weak dollar, etc.
-
AuthorPosts
