Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
ParticipantIt’s extremely rare to see a stock as widely followed as Countrywide fall to the degree it’s stock did today on a “rumor” that wasn’t ultimately substantiated to some degree. I suspect CFC is right on the brink. Generally, where there’s smoke, there’s some degree of fire. Look for more lines of depositors forming in front of CFC branches in coming days…
ParticipantIt’s extremely rare to see a stock as widely followed as Countrywide fall to the degree it’s stock did today on a “rumor” that wasn’t ultimately substantiated to some degree. I suspect CFC is right on the brink. Generally, where there’s smoke, there’s some degree of fire. Look for more lines of depositors forming in front of CFC branches in coming days…
ParticipantIt’s extremely rare to see a stock as widely followed as Countrywide fall to the degree it’s stock did today on a “rumor” that wasn’t ultimately substantiated to some degree. I suspect CFC is right on the brink. Generally, where there’s smoke, there’s some degree of fire. Look for more lines of depositors forming in front of CFC branches in coming days…
ParticipantAnyone know why the November numbers broke the trend so decisively only to have the trend reasserted with a vengeance in December? Someone mentioned in a previous post that maybe the November numbers represented a seasonal issue, or perhaps loan modifications were increasing, which I couldn’t disagree with. But the December numbers are a nightmare. If December is any indication of what 2008 numbers are going to look like… we could see 15,000+ trustee deeds next year, which is 250% of the worst year during the 90s (1996 to be exact). Oh Lawzy… lawzy lawzy lawzy.
ParticipantAnyone know why the November numbers broke the trend so decisively only to have the trend reasserted with a vengeance in December? Someone mentioned in a previous post that maybe the November numbers represented a seasonal issue, or perhaps loan modifications were increasing, which I couldn’t disagree with. But the December numbers are a nightmare. If December is any indication of what 2008 numbers are going to look like… we could see 15,000+ trustee deeds next year, which is 250% of the worst year during the 90s (1996 to be exact). Oh Lawzy… lawzy lawzy lawzy.
ParticipantAnyone know why the November numbers broke the trend so decisively only to have the trend reasserted with a vengeance in December? Someone mentioned in a previous post that maybe the November numbers represented a seasonal issue, or perhaps loan modifications were increasing, which I couldn’t disagree with. But the December numbers are a nightmare. If December is any indication of what 2008 numbers are going to look like… we could see 15,000+ trustee deeds next year, which is 250% of the worst year during the 90s (1996 to be exact). Oh Lawzy… lawzy lawzy lawzy.
ParticipantAnyone know why the November numbers broke the trend so decisively only to have the trend reasserted with a vengeance in December? Someone mentioned in a previous post that maybe the November numbers represented a seasonal issue, or perhaps loan modifications were increasing, which I couldn’t disagree with. But the December numbers are a nightmare. If December is any indication of what 2008 numbers are going to look like… we could see 15,000+ trustee deeds next year, which is 250% of the worst year during the 90s (1996 to be exact). Oh Lawzy… lawzy lawzy lawzy.
ParticipantAnyone know why the November numbers broke the trend so decisively only to have the trend reasserted with a vengeance in December? Someone mentioned in a previous post that maybe the November numbers represented a seasonal issue, or perhaps loan modifications were increasing, which I couldn’t disagree with. But the December numbers are a nightmare. If December is any indication of what 2008 numbers are going to look like… we could see 15,000+ trustee deeds next year, which is 250% of the worst year during the 90s (1996 to be exact). Oh Lawzy… lawzy lawzy lawzy.
January 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM in reply to: RSF kicking out Fairbanks Ranch, Cielo, Crosby, Bridges, Whispering Palms #130895ParticipantAnyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.
raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.
January 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM in reply to: RSF kicking out Fairbanks Ranch, Cielo, Crosby, Bridges, Whispering Palms #131075ParticipantAnyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.
raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.
January 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM in reply to: RSF kicking out Fairbanks Ranch, Cielo, Crosby, Bridges, Whispering Palms #131081ParticipantAnyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.
raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.
January 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM in reply to: RSF kicking out Fairbanks Ranch, Cielo, Crosby, Bridges, Whispering Palms #131142ParticipantAnyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.
raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.
January 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM in reply to: RSF kicking out Fairbanks Ranch, Cielo, Crosby, Bridges, Whispering Palms #131177ParticipantAnyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.
raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.
Participantbubba99, yes I think real GDP growth has been overstated for several years. Yes, things are and have been much slower than they appear via the “headline” numbers. I’m a doom-and-gloomer but not an UBER doom-and-gloomer. We’ll have a “real” recession and muddle through for several years. It’s not the end of the world. In fact, we need a good muddle-through period to remind people that there are actually risks out there. In the long term the next few years of difficulties will be good for the economy.
-
AuthorPosts
