[davelj]

A few comments and observations on CRE…

I was at a banking conference last week and there were three CEOs from California banks (“community banks” – $800 million to $6 billion in assets) on a panel discussing Southern California CRE credit trends. Here’s a summary of their thoughts and observations:

– We’re in the third or fourth inning of the downside of the (general) credit cycle; it will get meaningfully worse before it gets better.
– Bottom of the cycle/Recovery will be late-2009/early-2010.
– There’s a notable bifurcation in the CRE market. In general, properties closer to the coast (10 miles) and/or surrounded by “established” neighborhoods are doing pretty well, although problems are expected to crop up. Properties further from the coast – Inland Empire, Murietta, Temecula, East SD County, East Chula Vista, etc. – are struggling and it will get much worse; it will be like the early-90s in these areas.
– CRE in the coastal/established areas will have problems but not as bad as the early-90s due to: (1) A more diversified economy – that is, we won’t have the same proportion of people simply leaving the state as when the defense industry left the state in the early-90s, and (2) Less overbuilding this time around – the early-90s CRE meltdown was exacerbated by dramatic overbuilt conditions throughout SoCal.
– The CRE-oriented REITS with lots of exposure to Class A office towers in Orange County will have big problems as this market is in shambles due to all the high-end mortgage broker-related space available.

These three bankers were all operating their banks during the early-90s and survived without needing to be recapitalized. They are generally thought of as relatively conservative underwriters.

Now, there is a distinction that needs to be made between existing CRE and CRE that’s under construction or recently completed and not leased up. Probably anything that’s under construction or recently completed (and not leased up) is a bad deal for the bank, almost regardless of its location.

The main thing that separates CRE from SFR is that, ultimately, there’s gotta be a debt coverage ratio when the loan is underwritten, generally between 1.1x and 1.2x (now it’s almost exclusively 1.2x because banks are tightening up on underwriting). And the minimum LTV has generally been 85%, even during the boom times, although cap rates have been very (re: too) low. BUT, the debt coverage ratio puts a cap on how much the bank is willing to lend regardless of what value gets generated from the cap rate. So, things got crazy in CRE, but not nearly as crazy as SFR, because there is real income involved (although it will certainly decline for the next few years) and there is real equity involved (again, this too will almost certainly decline in aggregate).

So, my guess is that we’ll see the coastal/established properties, in aggregate, lose some tenants and have to re-lease at lower rates, plus cap rates will inch up and net/net many of these properties will be underwater for a couple of years, but not REALLY underwater. Most will continue to make their interest payments, some loans will need to get restructured (with attendant losses for the banks) and some will get foreclosed, with larger losses for the banks. But – and I could be wrong – while I see impending pain and discomfort, I don’t foresee a total disaster in this property type.

But the stuff in the Inland Empire, East County, etc… that will be a bloodbath largely because the customers (the people who are in foreclosure and/or never moved into their homes) simply aren’t there to support the businesses.

What are your thoughts on some of this Bugs?

[davelj]

A few comments and observations on CRE…

I was at a banking conference last week and there were three CEOs from California banks (“community banks” – $800 million to $6 billion in assets) on a panel discussing Southern California CRE credit trends. Here’s a summary of their thoughts and observations:

– We’re in the third or fourth inning of the downside of the (general) credit cycle; it will get meaningfully worse before it gets better.
– Bottom of the cycle/Recovery will be late-2009/early-2010.
– There’s a notable bifurcation in the CRE market. In general, properties closer to the coast (10 miles) and/or surrounded by “established” neighborhoods are doing pretty well, although problems are expected to crop up. Properties further from the coast – Inland Empire, Murietta, Temecula, East SD County, East Chula Vista, etc. – are struggling and it will get much worse; it will be like the early-90s in these areas.
– CRE in the coastal/established areas will have problems but not as bad as the early-90s due to: (1) A more diversified economy – that is, we won’t have the same proportion of people simply leaving the state as when the defense industry left the state in the early-90s, and (2) Less overbuilding this time around – the early-90s CRE meltdown was exacerbated by dramatic overbuilt conditions throughout SoCal.
– The CRE-oriented REITS with lots of exposure to Class A office towers in Orange County will have big problems as this market is in shambles due to all the high-end mortgage broker-related space available.

These three bankers were all operating their banks during the early-90s and survived without needing to be recapitalized. They are generally thought of as relatively conservative underwriters.

Now, there is a distinction that needs to be made between existing CRE and CRE that’s under construction or recently completed and not leased up. Probably anything that’s under construction or recently completed (and not leased up) is a bad deal for the bank, almost regardless of its location.

The main thing that separates CRE from SFR is that, ultimately, there’s gotta be a debt coverage ratio when the loan is underwritten, generally between 1.1x and 1.2x (now it’s almost exclusively 1.2x because banks are tightening up on underwriting). And the minimum LTV has generally been 85%, even during the boom times, although cap rates have been very (re: too) low. BUT, the debt coverage ratio puts a cap on how much the bank is willing to lend regardless of what value gets generated from the cap rate. So, things got crazy in CRE, but not nearly as crazy as SFR, because there is real income involved (although it will certainly decline for the next few years) and there is real equity involved (again, this too will almost certainly decline in aggregate).

So, my guess is that we’ll see the coastal/established properties, in aggregate, lose some tenants and have to re-lease at lower rates, plus cap rates will inch up and net/net many of these properties will be underwater for a couple of years, but not REALLY underwater. Most will continue to make their interest payments, some loans will need to get restructured (with attendant losses for the banks) and some will get foreclosed, with larger losses for the banks. But – and I could be wrong – while I see impending pain and discomfort, I don’t foresee a total disaster in this property type.

But the stuff in the Inland Empire, East County, etc… that will be a bloodbath largely because the customers (the people who are in foreclosure and/or never moved into their homes) simply aren’t there to support the businesses.

What are your thoughts on some of this Bugs?

[davelj]

A few comments and observations on CRE…

I was at a banking conference last week and there were three CEOs from California banks (“community banks” – $800 million to $6 billion in assets) on a panel discussing Southern California CRE credit trends. Here’s a summary of their thoughts and observations:

– We’re in the third or fourth inning of the downside of the (general) credit cycle; it will get meaningfully worse before it gets better.
– Bottom of the cycle/Recovery will be late-2009/early-2010.
– There’s a notable bifurcation in the CRE market. In general, properties closer to the coast (10 miles) and/or surrounded by “established” neighborhoods are doing pretty well, although problems are expected to crop up. Properties further from the coast – Inland Empire, Murietta, Temecula, East SD County, East Chula Vista, etc. – are struggling and it will get much worse; it will be like the early-90s in these areas.
– CRE in the coastal/established areas will have problems but not as bad as the early-90s due to: (1) A more diversified economy – that is, we won’t have the same proportion of people simply leaving the state as when the defense industry left the state in the early-90s, and (2) Less overbuilding this time around – the early-90s CRE meltdown was exacerbated by dramatic overbuilt conditions throughout SoCal.
– The CRE-oriented REITS with lots of exposure to Class A office towers in Orange County will have big problems as this market is in shambles due to all the high-end mortgage broker-related space available.

These three bankers were all operating their banks during the early-90s and survived without needing to be recapitalized. They are generally thought of as relatively conservative underwriters.

Now, there is a distinction that needs to be made between existing CRE and CRE that’s under construction or recently completed and not leased up. Probably anything that’s under construction or recently completed (and not leased up) is a bad deal for the bank, almost regardless of its location.

The main thing that separates CRE from SFR is that, ultimately, there’s gotta be a debt coverage ratio when the loan is underwritten, generally between 1.1x and 1.2x (now it’s almost exclusively 1.2x because banks are tightening up on underwriting). And the minimum LTV has generally been 85%, even during the boom times, although cap rates have been very (re: too) low. BUT, the debt coverage ratio puts a cap on how much the bank is willing to lend regardless of what value gets generated from the cap rate. So, things got crazy in CRE, but not nearly as crazy as SFR, because there is real income involved (although it will certainly decline for the next few years) and there is real equity involved (again, this too will almost certainly decline in aggregate).

So, my guess is that we’ll see the coastal/established properties, in aggregate, lose some tenants and have to re-lease at lower rates, plus cap rates will inch up and net/net many of these properties will be underwater for a couple of years, but not REALLY underwater. Most will continue to make their interest payments, some loans will need to get restructured (with attendant losses for the banks) and some will get foreclosed, with larger losses for the banks. But – and I could be wrong – while I see impending pain and discomfort, I don’t foresee a total disaster in this property type.

But the stuff in the Inland Empire, East County, etc… that will be a bloodbath largely because the customers (the people who are in foreclosure and/or never moved into their homes) simply aren’t there to support the businesses.

What are your thoughts on some of this Bugs?

[davelj]

A few comments and observations on CRE…

I was at a banking conference last week and there were three CEOs from California banks (“community banks” – $800 million to $6 billion in assets) on a panel discussing Southern California CRE credit trends. Here’s a summary of their thoughts and observations:

– We’re in the third or fourth inning of the downside of the (general) credit cycle; it will get meaningfully worse before it gets better.
– Bottom of the cycle/Recovery will be late-2009/early-2010.
– There’s a notable bifurcation in the CRE market. In general, properties closer to the coast (10 miles) and/or surrounded by “established” neighborhoods are doing pretty well, although problems are expected to crop up. Properties further from the coast – Inland Empire, Murietta, Temecula, East SD County, East Chula Vista, etc. – are struggling and it will get much worse; it will be like the early-90s in these areas.
– CRE in the coastal/established areas will have problems but not as bad as the early-90s due to: (1) A more diversified economy – that is, we won’t have the same proportion of people simply leaving the state as when the defense industry left the state in the early-90s, and (2) Less overbuilding this time around – the early-90s CRE meltdown was exacerbated by dramatic overbuilt conditions throughout SoCal.
– The CRE-oriented REITS with lots of exposure to Class A office towers in Orange County will have big problems as this market is in shambles due to all the high-end mortgage broker-related space available.

These three bankers were all operating their banks during the early-90s and survived without needing to be recapitalized. They are generally thought of as relatively conservative underwriters.

Now, there is a distinction that needs to be made between existing CRE and CRE that’s under construction or recently completed and not leased up. Probably anything that’s under construction or recently completed (and not leased up) is a bad deal for the bank, almost regardless of its location.

The main thing that separates CRE from SFR is that, ultimately, there’s gotta be a debt coverage ratio when the loan is underwritten, generally between 1.1x and 1.2x (now it’s almost exclusively 1.2x because banks are tightening up on underwriting). And the minimum LTV has generally been 85%, even during the boom times, although cap rates have been very (re: too) low. BUT, the debt coverage ratio puts a cap on how much the bank is willing to lend regardless of what value gets generated from the cap rate. So, things got crazy in CRE, but not nearly as crazy as SFR, because there is real income involved (although it will certainly decline for the next few years) and there is real equity involved (again, this too will almost certainly decline in aggregate).

So, my guess is that we’ll see the coastal/established properties, in aggregate, lose some tenants and have to re-lease at lower rates, plus cap rates will inch up and net/net many of these properties will be underwater for a couple of years, but not REALLY underwater. Most will continue to make their interest payments, some loans will need to get restructured (with attendant losses for the banks) and some will get foreclosed, with larger losses for the banks. But – and I could be wrong – while I see impending pain and discomfort, I don’t foresee a total disaster in this property type.

But the stuff in the Inland Empire, East County, etc… that will be a bloodbath largely because the customers (the people who are in foreclosure and/or never moved into their homes) simply aren’t there to support the businesses.

What are your thoughts on some of this Bugs?

[davelj]

Contraman, your posts in this thread can be summed up as follows: “I’m special because I’m not greedy and like to play music and make people happy. I’m special because I appreciate the simple things in life, like a timex and a used stratocaster. These other people who like big houses and BMWs are bad people because to enjoy material things is evil. I’m so glad my momma raised me right so that I could feel superior to everyone who doesn’t agree with my (purportedly superior) way of life.”

That’s what your posts here are all about, contraman – your desire to make yourself out to be superior to other folks. Just admit it. A retard could see this.

The problem is that I ain’t buyin’ what you’re sellin’. You’re no different than anyone else in the greed category – you do what YOU want to do (“selfish; keenly desirous”), not other things that might benefit society more than sitting on your ass strumming your guitar. You’re not good or bad in this respect, nor am I. The difference, as I pointed out previously, is that you’re a hypocrite where this issue is concerned, while I am not.

[Greedy (adj.): (1) having a strong desire for wealth, profit, food, drink, etc.; (2) selfish; keenly desirous.]

So, here’s my advice. You want to prove you’re superior to the materialists. Well, have at it. Sell those Gibsons, Fenders and Takamines. Get rid of your Ampeg, your Mesa Boogie and all of those crappy SM57s. And move to Africa for the rest of your life and help people that really need it. I guarantee that sitting on your ass playing your guitar is QUITE selfish relative to what your capable of doing for others if you weren’t so damn greedy. Or for that matter, start a company that will create jobs for people. But you won’t do either of these things… because you’re greedy… and you’d rather sit around playing music. Which is perfectly fine by me. Just don’t take a superior tone with those of us who see right through your glaring hypocrisy.

The confusion here is that you think greed = bad. It doesn’t. Greed = Human. And we only vary by degree. And not by as much as you’d like to convince yourself.

I used to be just like you, contraman. 18 years ago I was in a band and helped blow through $320,000 in advance money from a now-defunct subsidiary of Virgin Records. We sold all of about 7,000 CDs. A spectacular commercial failure. But we had a great time for about two years and saw a big chunk of the world on someone else’s dime. It was a great experience. (Right now, in fact, I’m looking at two basses, three electric guitars, an Ibanez 6-string acoustic and a Fender 12-string acoustic still left over from those days.) Fortunately, shortly thereafter I was disabused of my notions regarding the purported “superiority” of the “artistic way of life.” But it’s normal to be idealistic and naive when you’re young. I don’t know what your excuse is.

I’m in agreement with Bugs… the issue isn’t greed/desire/motivation (call it what you want) in and of itself. It’s how unethical/immoral you’re willing to be to satisfy your greed/desire/motivation. But that’s a different topic entirely.

I remain,
Greedy Davelj

(BTW, your music “touches people’s lives in a positive way”? You MUST be kidding. Does ANY musician say that about their OWN music? Wow. Too hysterical.)

[davelj]

Contraman, your posts in this thread can be summed up as follows: “I’m special because I’m not greedy and like to play music and make people happy. I’m special because I appreciate the simple things in life, like a timex and a used stratocaster. These other people who like big houses and BMWs are bad people because to enjoy material things is evil. I’m so glad my momma raised me right so that I could feel superior to everyone who doesn’t agree with my (purportedly superior) way of life.”

That’s what your posts here are all about, contraman – your desire to make yourself out to be superior to other folks. Just admit it. A retard could see this.

The problem is that I ain’t buyin’ what you’re sellin’. You’re no different than anyone else in the greed category – you do what YOU want to do (“selfish; keenly desirous”), not other things that might benefit society more than sitting on your ass strumming your guitar. You’re not good or bad in this respect, nor am I. The difference, as I pointed out previously, is that you’re a hypocrite where this issue is concerned, while I am not.

[Greedy (adj.): (1) having a strong desire for wealth, profit, food, drink, etc.; (2) selfish; keenly desirous.]

So, here’s my advice. You want to prove you’re superior to the materialists. Well, have at it. Sell those Gibsons, Fenders and Takamines. Get rid of your Ampeg, your Mesa Boogie and all of those crappy SM57s. And move to Africa for the rest of your life and help people that really need it. I guarantee that sitting on your ass playing your guitar is QUITE selfish relative to what your capable of doing for others if you weren’t so damn greedy. Or for that matter, start a company that will create jobs for people. But you won’t do either of these things… because you’re greedy… and you’d rather sit around playing music. Which is perfectly fine by me. Just don’t take a superior tone with those of us who see right through your glaring hypocrisy.

The confusion here is that you think greed = bad. It doesn’t. Greed = Human. And we only vary by degree. And not by as much as you’d like to convince yourself.

I used to be just like you, contraman. 18 years ago I was in a band and helped blow through $320,000 in advance money from a now-defunct subsidiary of Virgin Records. We sold all of about 7,000 CDs. A spectacular commercial failure. But we had a great time for about two years and saw a big chunk of the world on someone else’s dime. It was a great experience. (Right now, in fact, I’m looking at two basses, three electric guitars, an Ibanez 6-string acoustic and a Fender 12-string acoustic still left over from those days.) Fortunately, shortly thereafter I was disabused of my notions regarding the purported “superiority” of the “artistic way of life.” But it’s normal to be idealistic and naive when you’re young. I don’t know what your excuse is.

I’m in agreement with Bugs… the issue isn’t greed/desire/motivation (call it what you want) in and of itself. It’s how unethical/immoral you’re willing to be to satisfy your greed/desire/motivation. But that’s a different topic entirely.

I remain,
Greedy Davelj

(BTW, your music “touches people’s lives in a positive way”? You MUST be kidding. Does ANY musician say that about their OWN music? Wow. Too hysterical.)

[davelj]

Contraman, your posts in this thread can be summed up as follows: “I’m special because I’m not greedy and like to play music and make people happy. I’m special because I appreciate the simple things in life, like a timex and a used stratocaster. These other people who like big houses and BMWs are bad people because to enjoy material things is evil. I’m so glad my momma raised me right so that I could feel superior to everyone who doesn’t agree with my (purportedly superior) way of life.”

That’s what your posts here are all about, contraman – your desire to make yourself out to be superior to other folks. Just admit it. A retard could see this.

The problem is that I ain’t buyin’ what you’re sellin’. You’re no different than anyone else in the greed category – you do what YOU want to do (“selfish; keenly desirous”), not other things that might benefit society more than sitting on your ass strumming your guitar. You’re not good or bad in this respect, nor am I. The difference, as I pointed out previously, is that you’re a hypocrite where this issue is concerned, while I am not.

[Greedy (adj.): (1) having a strong desire for wealth, profit, food, drink, etc.; (2) selfish; keenly desirous.]

So, here’s my advice. You want to prove you’re superior to the materialists. Well, have at it. Sell those Gibsons, Fenders and Takamines. Get rid of your Ampeg, your Mesa Boogie and all of those crappy SM57s. And move to Africa for the rest of your life and help people that really need it. I guarantee that sitting on your ass playing your guitar is QUITE selfish relative to what your capable of doing for others if you weren’t so damn greedy. Or for that matter, start a company that will create jobs for people. But you won’t do either of these things… because you’re greedy… and you’d rather sit around playing music. Which is perfectly fine by me. Just don’t take a superior tone with those of us who see right through your glaring hypocrisy.

The confusion here is that you think greed = bad. It doesn’t. Greed = Human. And we only vary by degree. And not by as much as you’d like to convince yourself.

I used to be just like you, contraman. 18 years ago I was in a band and helped blow through $320,000 in advance money from a now-defunct subsidiary of Virgin Records. We sold all of about 7,000 CDs. A spectacular commercial failure. But we had a great time for about two years and saw a big chunk of the world on someone else’s dime. It was a great experience. (Right now, in fact, I’m looking at two basses, three electric guitars, an Ibanez 6-string acoustic and a Fender 12-string acoustic still left over from those days.) Fortunately, shortly thereafter I was disabused of my notions regarding the purported “superiority” of the “artistic way of life.” But it’s normal to be idealistic and naive when you’re young. I don’t know what your excuse is.

I’m in agreement with Bugs… the issue isn’t greed/desire/motivation (call it what you want) in and of itself. It’s how unethical/immoral you’re willing to be to satisfy your greed/desire/motivation. But that’s a different topic entirely.

I remain,
Greedy Davelj

(BTW, your music “touches people’s lives in a positive way”? You MUST be kidding. Does ANY musician say that about their OWN music? Wow. Too hysterical.)

[davelj]

Contraman, your posts in this thread can be summed up as follows: “I’m special because I’m not greedy and like to play music and make people happy. I’m special because I appreciate the simple things in life, like a timex and a used stratocaster. These other people who like big houses and BMWs are bad people because to enjoy material things is evil. I’m so glad my momma raised me right so that I could feel superior to everyone who doesn’t agree with my (purportedly superior) way of life.”

That’s what your posts here are all about, contraman – your desire to make yourself out to be superior to other folks. Just admit it. A retard could see this.

The problem is that I ain’t buyin’ what you’re sellin’. You’re no different than anyone else in the greed category – you do what YOU want to do (“selfish; keenly desirous”), not other things that might benefit society more than sitting on your ass strumming your guitar. You’re not good or bad in this respect, nor am I. The difference, as I pointed out previously, is that you’re a hypocrite where this issue is concerned, while I am not.

[Greedy (adj.): (1) having a strong desire for wealth, profit, food, drink, etc.; (2) selfish; keenly desirous.]

So, here’s my advice. You want to prove you’re superior to the materialists. Well, have at it. Sell those Gibsons, Fenders and Takamines. Get rid of your Ampeg, your Mesa Boogie and all of those crappy SM57s. And move to Africa for the rest of your life and help people that really need it. I guarantee that sitting on your ass playing your guitar is QUITE selfish relative to what your capable of doing for others if you weren’t so damn greedy. Or for that matter, start a company that will create jobs for people. But you won’t do either of these things… because you’re greedy… and you’d rather sit around playing music. Which is perfectly fine by me. Just don’t take a superior tone with those of us who see right through your glaring hypocrisy.

The confusion here is that you think greed = bad. It doesn’t. Greed = Human. And we only vary by degree. And not by as much as you’d like to convince yourself.

I used to be just like you, contraman. 18 years ago I was in a band and helped blow through $320,000 in advance money from a now-defunct subsidiary of Virgin Records. We sold all of about 7,000 CDs. A spectacular commercial failure. But we had a great time for about two years and saw a big chunk of the world on someone else’s dime. It was a great experience. (Right now, in fact, I’m looking at two basses, three electric guitars, an Ibanez 6-string acoustic and a Fender 12-string acoustic still left over from those days.) Fortunately, shortly thereafter I was disabused of my notions regarding the purported “superiority” of the “artistic way of life.” But it’s normal to be idealistic and naive when you’re young. I don’t know what your excuse is.

I’m in agreement with Bugs… the issue isn’t greed/desire/motivation (call it what you want) in and of itself. It’s how unethical/immoral you’re willing to be to satisfy your greed/desire/motivation. But that’s a different topic entirely.

I remain,
Greedy Davelj

(BTW, your music “touches people’s lives in a positive way”? You MUST be kidding. Does ANY musician say that about their OWN music? Wow. Too hysterical.)

[davelj]

Contraman, your posts in this thread can be summed up as follows: “I’m special because I’m not greedy and like to play music and make people happy. I’m special because I appreciate the simple things in life, like a timex and a used stratocaster. These other people who like big houses and BMWs are bad people because to enjoy material things is evil. I’m so glad my momma raised me right so that I could feel superior to everyone who doesn’t agree with my (purportedly superior) way of life.”

That’s what your posts here are all about, contraman – your desire to make yourself out to be superior to other folks. Just admit it. A retard could see this.

The problem is that I ain’t buyin’ what you’re sellin’. You’re no different than anyone else in the greed category – you do what YOU want to do (“selfish; keenly desirous”), not other things that might benefit society more than sitting on your ass strumming your guitar. You’re not good or bad in this respect, nor am I. The difference, as I pointed out previously, is that you’re a hypocrite where this issue is concerned, while I am not.

[Greedy (adj.): (1) having a strong desire for wealth, profit, food, drink, etc.; (2) selfish; keenly desirous.]

So, here’s my advice. You want to prove you’re superior to the materialists. Well, have at it. Sell those Gibsons, Fenders and Takamines. Get rid of your Ampeg, your Mesa Boogie and all of those crappy SM57s. And move to Africa for the rest of your life and help people that really need it. I guarantee that sitting on your ass playing your guitar is QUITE selfish relative to what your capable of doing for others if you weren’t so damn greedy. Or for that matter, start a company that will create jobs for people. But you won’t do either of these things… because you’re greedy… and you’d rather sit around playing music. Which is perfectly fine by me. Just don’t take a superior tone with those of us who see right through your glaring hypocrisy.

The confusion here is that you think greed = bad. It doesn’t. Greed = Human. And we only vary by degree. And not by as much as you’d like to convince yourself.

I used to be just like you, contraman. 18 years ago I was in a band and helped blow through $320,000 in advance money from a now-defunct subsidiary of Virgin Records. We sold all of about 7,000 CDs. A spectacular commercial failure. But we had a great time for about two years and saw a big chunk of the world on someone else’s dime. It was a great experience. (Right now, in fact, I’m looking at two basses, three electric guitars, an Ibanez 6-string acoustic and a Fender 12-string acoustic still left over from those days.) Fortunately, shortly thereafter I was disabused of my notions regarding the purported “superiority” of the “artistic way of life.” But it’s normal to be idealistic and naive when you’re young. I don’t know what your excuse is.

I’m in agreement with Bugs… the issue isn’t greed/desire/motivation (call it what you want) in and of itself. It’s how unethical/immoral you’re willing to be to satisfy your greed/desire/motivation. But that’s a different topic entirely.

I remain,
Greedy Davelj

(BTW, your music “touches people’s lives in a positive way”? You MUST be kidding. Does ANY musician say that about their OWN music? Wow. Too hysterical.)

[davelj]

Yeah, you hit a nerve alright… my HYPOCRISY nerve. In the form of your comments. I “rely on movie quotes to justify my position of being greedy?” What planet are you on? I wasn’t relying on that quote to justify my position – just mentioning it to provide context because it’s well known. My position stands on its own; its justification is self-evident.

“GREED breeds ignorance because it causes you to not look at the fundamentals of a decision objectively. It is rooted in an insecurity somewhere along the line.”

Uh… what? Look, now you’re just making things up. That’s a bunch of self-manufactured psychobabble that any 8 year old could see through. If you’re going to just make stuff up, at least do a better job of it.

So, you are “a musician and I don’t write music and perform because of money, I do it because I find fulfillment in it at the end of the day.” Oh, I see… so YOU find fulfillment in it… so YOU engage in writing and performing music instead of, say… working at a non-profit to help the disadvantaged, or say, taking a job where you’d make more money so that you could give it away to charity. Sounds pretty greedy to me, contraman. Sounds like your life is all about YOUR FULFILLMENT. Greed isn’t just about money and material goods, contraman… you don’t understand that?

“and in case you are wondering I could buy all these things if I wanted to, it’s not that I am envious of rich people here.” Oh. My. God. You cannot be serious. Do you know how completely pathetic you sound?

There are two types of people in this world, contraman. Those that are greedy and admit it, and those that are greedy and don’t. I’m in the former group, you’re in the latter… with all the other hypocrites.

OK, off to Target, contraman. You said 3 for $10, right?

Signed, Greedy Davelj

[davelj]

Yeah, you hit a nerve alright… my HYPOCRISY nerve. In the form of your comments. I “rely on movie quotes to justify my position of being greedy?” What planet are you on? I wasn’t relying on that quote to justify my position – just mentioning it to provide context because it’s well known. My position stands on its own; its justification is self-evident.

“GREED breeds ignorance because it causes you to not look at the fundamentals of a decision objectively. It is rooted in an insecurity somewhere along the line.”

Uh… what? Look, now you’re just making things up. That’s a bunch of self-manufactured psychobabble that any 8 year old could see through. If you’re going to just make stuff up, at least do a better job of it.

So, you are “a musician and I don’t write music and perform because of money, I do it because I find fulfillment in it at the end of the day.” Oh, I see… so YOU find fulfillment in it… so YOU engage in writing and performing music instead of, say… working at a non-profit to help the disadvantaged, or say, taking a job where you’d make more money so that you could give it away to charity. Sounds pretty greedy to me, contraman. Sounds like your life is all about YOUR FULFILLMENT. Greed isn’t just about money and material goods, contraman… you don’t understand that?

“and in case you are wondering I could buy all these things if I wanted to, it’s not that I am envious of rich people here.” Oh. My. God. You cannot be serious. Do you know how completely pathetic you sound?

There are two types of people in this world, contraman. Those that are greedy and admit it, and those that are greedy and don’t. I’m in the former group, you’re in the latter… with all the other hypocrites.

OK, off to Target, contraman. You said 3 for $10, right?

Signed, Greedy Davelj

[davelj]

Yeah, you hit a nerve alright… my HYPOCRISY nerve. In the form of your comments. I “rely on movie quotes to justify my position of being greedy?” What planet are you on? I wasn’t relying on that quote to justify my position – just mentioning it to provide context because it’s well known. My position stands on its own; its justification is self-evident.

“GREED breeds ignorance because it causes you to not look at the fundamentals of a decision objectively. It is rooted in an insecurity somewhere along the line.”

Uh… what? Look, now you’re just making things up. That’s a bunch of self-manufactured psychobabble that any 8 year old could see through. If you’re going to just make stuff up, at least do a better job of it.

So, you are “a musician and I don’t write music and perform because of money, I do it because I find fulfillment in it at the end of the day.” Oh, I see… so YOU find fulfillment in it… so YOU engage in writing and performing music instead of, say… working at a non-profit to help the disadvantaged, or say, taking a job where you’d make more money so that you could give it away to charity. Sounds pretty greedy to me, contraman. Sounds like your life is all about YOUR FULFILLMENT. Greed isn’t just about money and material goods, contraman… you don’t understand that?

“and in case you are wondering I could buy all these things if I wanted to, it’s not that I am envious of rich people here.” Oh. My. God. You cannot be serious. Do you know how completely pathetic you sound?

There are two types of people in this world, contraman. Those that are greedy and admit it, and those that are greedy and don’t. I’m in the former group, you’re in the latter… with all the other hypocrites.

OK, off to Target, contraman. You said 3 for $10, right?

Signed, Greedy Davelj

[davelj]

Yeah, you hit a nerve alright… my HYPOCRISY nerve. In the form of your comments. I “rely on movie quotes to justify my position of being greedy?” What planet are you on? I wasn’t relying on that quote to justify my position – just mentioning it to provide context because it’s well known. My position stands on its own; its justification is self-evident.

“GREED breeds ignorance because it causes you to not look at the fundamentals of a decision objectively. It is rooted in an insecurity somewhere along the line.”

Uh… what? Look, now you’re just making things up. That’s a bunch of self-manufactured psychobabble that any 8 year old could see through. If you’re going to just make stuff up, at least do a better job of it.

So, you are “a musician and I don’t write music and perform because of money, I do it because I find fulfillment in it at the end of the day.” Oh, I see… so YOU find fulfillment in it… so YOU engage in writing and performing music instead of, say… working at a non-profit to help the disadvantaged, or say, taking a job where you’d make more money so that you could give it away to charity. Sounds pretty greedy to me, contraman. Sounds like your life is all about YOUR FULFILLMENT. Greed isn’t just about money and material goods, contraman… you don’t understand that?

“and in case you are wondering I could buy all these things if I wanted to, it’s not that I am envious of rich people here.” Oh. My. God. You cannot be serious. Do you know how completely pathetic you sound?

There are two types of people in this world, contraman. Those that are greedy and admit it, and those that are greedy and don’t. I’m in the former group, you’re in the latter… with all the other hypocrites.

OK, off to Target, contraman. You said 3 for $10, right?

Signed, Greedy Davelj

[davelj]

Yeah, you hit a nerve alright… my HYPOCRISY nerve. In the form of your comments. I “rely on movie quotes to justify my position of being greedy?” What planet are you on? I wasn’t relying on that quote to justify my position – just mentioning it to provide context because it’s well known. My position stands on its own; its justification is self-evident.

“GREED breeds ignorance because it causes you to not look at the fundamentals of a decision objectively. It is rooted in an insecurity somewhere along the line.”

Uh… what? Look, now you’re just making things up. That’s a bunch of self-manufactured psychobabble that any 8 year old could see through. If you’re going to just make stuff up, at least do a better job of it.

So, you are “a musician and I don’t write music and perform because of money, I do it because I find fulfillment in it at the end of the day.” Oh, I see… so YOU find fulfillment in it… so YOU engage in writing and performing music instead of, say… working at a non-profit to help the disadvantaged, or say, taking a job where you’d make more money so that you could give it away to charity. Sounds pretty greedy to me, contraman. Sounds like your life is all about YOUR FULFILLMENT. Greed isn’t just about money and material goods, contraman… you don’t understand that?

“and in case you are wondering I could buy all these things if I wanted to, it’s not that I am envious of rich people here.” Oh. My. God. You cannot be serious. Do you know how completely pathetic you sound?

There are two types of people in this world, contraman. Those that are greedy and admit it, and those that are greedy and don’t. I’m in the former group, you’re in the latter… with all the other hypocrites.

OK, off to Target, contraman. You said 3 for $10, right?

Signed, Greedy Davelj

[davelj]

So, contraman, since you were “born into a hard working family in the mid west that places little to no value on material things,” I guess you live in a one bedroom hovel and give away 80% of your money to charity. Is that right? Man, it must be kind of odd living here in the U.S. without a car, television, cell phone, computer, etc. Oops, you must have a computer…

I don’t think greed in and of itself is “one of the major factors that has contributed to this calamity that is upon us.” It’s ignorance.

I’m greedy. Really greedy. I’m definitely looking out for number one. My happiness and contentment is without a doubt the most important thing in my life. (The fact that I derive a lot of happiness in helping others, via charity and other avenues, is beside the fact. It’s still about my happiness at the end of the day.) And despite my incredible greed I didn’t get caught up in this whole housing mess. How can that be? Well, it’s because I’m greedy, you see, and didn’t want to lose my ass.

If you contemplate all of history’s inventions and discoveries that make our lives better/easier/more enjoyable, I’d be willing to bet that 99% of them did not originate from an altruistic motive. No, they were invented or discovered by someone trying to make a buck – some greedy SOB. Prove me wrong. Greed, generically, is good. (Gordon Gekko didn’t have it all wrong after all.)

Nope, the problem isn’t greed. It’s UNBRIDLED greed COUPLED with huge helpings of ignorance and impatience.

As an aside, I’ve generally found that people who rail against greed and materialism are the greediest and most materialistic people around. But that’s just been my experience.

[Author]

Posts