[Coronita]

[quote=justme]Was the total paperwork and aggravation for opting out worse or better than for opting in, you think?

What I really hate is the crappy $10 settlements I get for participating in some stock fraud lawsuits. Too much work, although they have improved now with more online entry. The one I hated the most was the one where they made me fill in lots of crap and then eventually I did not qualify because I had sold short. Why did they not tell me that up front, I would have known. Bastards. It’s not like the brokers they got the transaction data from did not know it was a short sale.[/quote]

I don’t know. I really didn’t think I was entitled to anything because I wasn’t ever hired up in the bay area by any of those employers up there, and so I doubt the collusion that went on up there was impacting my wages down here in San Diego. Afterall, apparently I was making well above what many engineers were saying on a previous thread was “unobtainable” for engineers down here in San Diego.

[Coronita]

If money really is no object, and your kid’s credentials allowed them to attend the school(s), AND if the kid has the ability to complete the degree with reasonable performance (I.E. not flunk out), then I would say send your kid to the most elite university that opens the most doors for him/her, BOTH in engineering AND outside of engineering, provided he/she wants to go there.

The reason is because I’ve seen many cases in which people who thought they wanted to be engineers ended up realizing halfway through their degree they absolutely hate it and want to do something else, and when that happened, who well they turned out depended on how well the school offered Plan B.

Also, it depends on how hard your kid wants to work. If he just wants an easier time and enjoy life too, and stay in engineering, you might want to think twice about sending him/her to Berkeley’s EE/CS program unless he’s just brilliant. I’ve personally think it’s much better to coast through college at a “lesser school” with mostly A’s and enjoy life than to struggle through something like Berkeley with a C-. You’re probably more employable in the former case too…

[Coronita]

[quote=bobby]contrary opinion.
since you will track the car, it will get rock chip, possibly small/large dents. insurance may not cover damages occurred on tracks.
consider an used Miata (there’s a large online presence of miata racers and support) and use spared funds for consumables and safety equipments.[/quote]

I have an old miata. But I don’t feel that safe in a old miata on a road course, and spending money to make it safe for a road course would defeat the purpose of it being “cheap”

[Coronita]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Kids beater car requires safety. So maybe a turbo minivan?[/quote]

The Subaru is actually pretty safe.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/brz-2-door-hatchback/2015

Subaru’s are known for their safety, supposedly.

[Coronita]

[quote=scaredyclassic]I read the link. Sounds like settlement could’ve been better. Seems like a dastardly anticapitalist action on part of cheesy corporations. Payment seems small, wouldn’t even be enough from making the companies. Think twice in t he future about doing it again.[/quote]

I didn’t even explicitly join the class action. I think all former employees were automatically included, unless you explicitly wanted to opt-out to sue for even more. I was like, ok whatever, I was hired out here in SD and none of the other employers recruit out here anyway at the time. Anyway, it was a nice before new year check I wasn’t expecting to get.

[Coronita]

Merry Christmas everyone.

[Coronita]

.

[Coronita]

[quote=mixxalot]Hopefully the rich Chinese entrepreneurs will open a new Asian or Chinese restaurant in Loma Portal, Point Loma and OB. We desperately need decent Chinese restaurants here! The only one that is half way decent is the hole in the wall Little Chef place in OB.[/quote]

I am hoping Din Tai Fung opens a place in San Diego. Until thrn,. Costa Mesa is the closest place. Definitely try it out if you are near Costa Mesa.

http://dintaifungusa.com/locations_us/

[Coronita]

I’d rather get the hendo hoverboard. Google it. Its pretty cool

[Coronita]

Its kinda funny looking of the democrat debates and the republican debates. The democrat debates look like an afternoon tea time debate among civilized people. The current GOP debates look like a frat party where everyone is drunk and saying whatever is on their minds.

[Coronita]

[quote=Balboa]Thanks everyone, and special thanks to Flu for making the call I don’t have time for! I confirms my sense of where things *should* stand.

I think I’ll get the renter’s insurance, but I am not doing the “additional insured” bit, even if I were to go with a carrier that offered it. If landlord insists, he’ll have to pony up the documents that show my non-compliance would violate my lease, i.e. raise his rates or cause him to lose coverage.

My lease also gives me the option of covering the cost of his higher premium, if there is one, instead of insuring myself. If that’s cost effective for the renter, I would be blown away.

The other thing that’s curious is whether he actually has this new carrier yet or not — if it’s the carrier that is requiring insurance and additional insured status, wouldn’t they require proof before the policy took effect?

For a law office, the language is terribly imprecise. For example, I’m pretty sure you can’t “renew” a policy with a new carrier. They could be using “additional insured” incorrectly, too.

Thanks as always! (Maybe this will be my last rental…)[/quote]

In every one of my condo’s insurance policy, there was never a requirement on my policy to require the renter has renter’s insurance before I could get insurance for my condo. As it was explained to me, two completely different policies for two different purposes. The condo policy covers the landlord’s dwelling plus his liability. The renter’s insurance cover’s the tenant’s personal belongings plus his/her liability.

In all likelihood, his insurance went up, and he probably is using this as an excuse for you to pay more for the cost of his insurance, and wants to create a pain in the ass situation so rather than you go out and get your own renter’s insurance, you just pay the additional cost he wants you to pay for his insurance…. If it was for me, I wouldn’t do it. I’d just go get my own renter’s insurance. I doubt whatever his insurance is will cover the cost of your personal belongs or cover your liability if something happens. If you’re going to be paying for insurance, you might as well spend money for insurance that benefits you, not him.

[Coronita]

[quote=Essbee]Hmm, but if you pay now, and the extra goes toward principal, doesn’t a larger proportion of your January and February payments go toward interest instead of principal? (ie because the remaining principal is less) on the date that those bills are generated?[/quote]

It’s the other way around. If your outstanding principal is less, interest computed is on a lower principal. Your monthly payment remains the same, but a a larger portion of it goes to principal instead of interest payments. If in doubt, just go use a decent amortization calculator.

[Coronita]

Actually, my 15 year on my primary and my 30 year on one rental all let me make payments ahead of time. I don’t need to make payments until March. But there’s a wrinkle to this. If you really have extra money, you are probably better off paying down your principal and making your regular payments on time. I am in this situation. In which I made early payment so i dont need to make payments to March, but I really wanted to pay off the remaining $55k loan amount in January.

I guess I could try to get the servicer to reverse my payments but probably not possible. So basically i made payments when my principal was higher, such that a greater portion of my payment went to interest. If I just paid down my principal at the time, I wouldn’t have made all that extra interest payments for January and February since I would have simply been done in January.

Almost debt free again…whohoo.

[Coronita]

[quote=spdrun]Prices are set by buyers not sellers. If there are no takers at an offered price, the value is lower. Regardless of whether the listing is pulled or not.[/quote]

It depends on the submarket you are talking about. When the housing markets crashed, We didn’t see a massive panic selling for example in Carmel V. You didn’t have a -20% across the board. Yes, you did have some folks that got in trouble ,folks that were able to buy that normally shouldn’t have ever been able to qualify for. And those people lost their homes.

But the majority of other people just sat it out. In fact, some of the better off simply took advantage of the downturn and bought another house that was on sale and held onto their existing home, waiting for things to turn around. And it looks like those are the same people now selling at ridiculous prices.

Now fast forward to the situation we are in right now. The folks that have all bought over the past few years are all the strongest buyers. They locked in when rates are ridiculously low, their fixed payments are ridiculously low, and rent costs are going through the roof. There is little motivation for the current owners who bought to sell, when rental costs > mortgage+tax+insurance. I don’t see a panic selling from the strongest buyers. If they are selling, they’ll put some ridiculous price on their home right now, and wait indefinitely to see if it sticks with anyone.

And we’re sort of seeing this right now in Carmel V. Inventory is going down, some people are sticking their homes on the market at ridiculous prices to see if there is someone out there that will buy it, and the home just sits there for many months waiting.

Just ask yuhtey or whatever his name was on how his house search is going.

http://www.sdlookup.com/Market-92130-Carmel_Valley
Inventory sits at 131, less than even June 2015…

Until the banks bring back the alt-a, stated income, sketchy financed people, then things won’t get that much more interesting. IN general, that hasn’t happened yet.

[Coronita]

[quote=Myriad]https://www.kitces.com/blog/irs-notice-2014-54-acquiesces-on-splitting-after-tax-401k-contributions-for-roth-conversion/

Basically when you pull money out of 401k to put in Rollover IRA, the after-tax 401k portion can go directly into a Roth IRA.

“While plans will still need to be cautious to navigate the ACP (Actual Contribution Percentage) test, where feasible the new “hierarchy” of tax-efficient savings strategies for retirement may now be:
– Obtain 401(k) match;
– Contribute further to max out pre-tax IRA and 401(k), or instead a Roth IRA and Roth 401(k) if current tax rates are low;
– Make after-tax contributions to the 401(k) plan if permitted, up to the annual defined contribution plan limits, in anticipation of converting those after-tax contributions in the future;
– Contribute to a low-cost non-qualified deferred annuity being used for tax deferral (which gets the tax-deferred growth treatment like after-tax contributions to a 401(k) plan, but not the ability to do a subsequent Roth conversion of the cost basis!)
“[/quote]

But does this assume you have no other iras? For example. Is this still allowed if you have a rollover IRA?

[Author]

Posts