Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
earlyretirement
ParticipantYeah, I saw Zillow had a rent zestimate of $1422 per month. I’m sure that area might be a bit rough but seems like the buyer is getting a steal if they can get $1400 per month!
I saw it was a short sale so realize that these types of thing are few and far between. Typically I only like buying in premium areas or areas that are quickly gentrifying but I think I’d risk it for that price!
spdrun – sounds like you’re cleaning up if you’re picking up properties at this price and getting these types of rents!
Participant[quote=flu][quote=earlyretirement][quote=flu]Well it’s not too late for the ronald mcdonald house of charity…
http://sdraffle.com/Overview.aspx🙂
Might put me in RSF….or not… Oh wait, heavens forbid if I were to win the house, I’d still need to pay taxes on it… never mind…
Oh well.. Ok, need to go work smarter/harder now….
(end vent).[/quote]
Ha, ha. Funny. I bought a few of those tickets. I figured it was a good cause no matter what. If I won, I’d definitely take the cash. Although that house looks really beautiful. (Did you get in on the early bird round flu? I did! 😛 )
[/quote]
Actually, I didn’t buy any…In fact I never buy a lotto ticket for myself… In all seriousness, I never thought it would be “earned” income if I were to win anyway, so it’s not exactly something I would be proud of…Hence, it would be a waste of money for me… I would buy a lotto ticket for other people for fun, not myself..
The interesting thing about the ronald mcd charity is it’s interesting how it works. The house being “gifted” is actually someone’s house. I think what happens is someone would normally sell a house, but instead opts to do be the prize for mcd charity… The charity gives a free promotion to the house, but rarely do they sell enough tickets to actually make good on the buying the house. And most people ,even if they win, wouldn’t take the house anyway, because they would have to pay taxes on the house, and I’m pretty sure most people wouldnt’ be able to afford the taxes on it. So what ends up happening is the winner gets takes the cash price (which is considerably less), the owner of the house gets a free promotion on the house (and houses like these don’t sell quickly anyway), and ronald mcd get’s its promotion of a raffle….In fact, if this were for profit, I’m pretty sure ronald mcd would actually make money off of these raffles…Just saying you know….Unfortunately, buying these raffle tickets has a huge disadvantage…They aren’t tax deductible…Better off just really donating to the charity (with no returned benefit) and getting the tax deduction..At $150 a raffle ticket (use to be $100), a little to rich for my blood if I don’t get any tax benefit…[/quote]
Oh I didn’t buy it expecting to win. I don’t look at this as a lotto type of thing. It’s a GREAT cause and charity. They do wonderful things. Many people I know make donations that aren’t tax deductible. I know we sure do. I don’t even donate for the tax deductions and more so the cause many times.
I do think you nailed it exactly on the set up. Has anyone ever taken the house in this thing? Also out of curiosity does anyone know the actual address of this house or the APN number?
Participant[quote=spdrun]Here’s one condo listed at $125k that I saw last month, but didn’t make an offer on. HOA = $265/mo, 2 bedroom, 2.5 bath, decently maintained complex.
http://www.trulia.com/property/3105956930-3916-60th-St-105-San-Diego-CA-92115
There have been others.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity what does a place in this area REALISTICALLY rent for?
Participant[quote=flu]Well it’s not too late for the ronald mcdonald house of charity…
http://sdraffle.com/Overview.aspx🙂
Might put me in RSF….or not… Oh wait, heavens forbid if I were to win the house, I’d still need to pay taxes on it… never mind…
Oh well.. Ok, need to go work smarter/harder now….
(end vent).[/quote]
Ha, ha. Funny. I bought a few of those tickets. I figured it was a good cause no matter what. If I won, I’d definitely take the cash. Although that house looks really beautiful. (Did you get in on the early bird round flu? I did! 😛 )
Flu, I wouldn’t get too discouraged. Things move in cycles. Nothing moves in a straight line. There are lots and lots of problems still out there.
Lots of this cash seems to also be people that did very well the past few years in the stock market. Several of my clients have cashed out a big chunk of it before December 31. Just cash sitting around not earning much interest. So several of them have picked up investment properties in desirable areas.
Like you mentioned, I don’t see too much downside risk if you have tons of cash on the sidelines sinking it in a LONG-TERM real estate holding where you plan to hold it for the foreseeable future. Even if prices fall again in the next few years, it’s not like you can’t rent it out and earn cash flow.
I’d much rather own a free and clear home in a desirable area of NCC (or a few miles inland) vs. a stock portfolio. Stocks can and do sometimes go to $0. (I know from experience buying Washington Mutual 2 days before they went under…. I tried to catch a falling knife and got my hands VERY bloody). Desirable real estate will never go to $0.
I don’t know the real estate market here in Coastal California like some of you pros, but I’m comfortable in saying you buy real estate in a desirable area of San Diego in an excellent school district and over the long-haul you will do fine even at today’s prices. We WILL see peak prices again here in San Diego.
I thought it might take up to 15 years to see it but now I’m not sure it will take too long. I would have MUCH preferred to see prices go up steadily and take longer. I don’t think what we’re seeing is healthy. Granted, I much prefer it to the last go around with no-doc loans and anyone with a heart beat getting a mortgage.
But I don’t see too much risk for people buying with cash in great areas in great school districts IF they plan to hold for the long term. I own a fairly good sized real estate portfolio and own several properties in several different countries.
They are all non-leveraged and paid off. I don’t really care too much what is going on with real estate prices (Ok..maybe I do a bit… LOL) but I don’t plan to sell them. And they easily rent out and have cash flow each month.
Even if the real estate sales prices fall which they do during some point in the “cycle”, I don’t stress about it. Buying in desirable neighborhoods with good school districts typically will always be easier to rent. I don’t care how bad the economy is. One thing I’ve learned is you will always have wealthy people looking for a roof over their heads.
Yeah it’s conservative saving up and paying cash for a property but over the long haul I don’t see too much risk if it’s truly for the long-term. Obviously you need to see what the rental yields are before buying.
Right now I’ll just wait from the sidelines as things are moving much faster than I thought it would. I don’t think anyone predicted prices and inventory to do what they are doing so quickly.
Participantflu,
Yeah, it’s BRUTAL. We made a few offers on places in Carmel Valley and finally gave up. Lots of cash offers going on there. I’m not going to chase it now.
I’m really curious how much of the buying is institutional. I know the cash % buyers are very high now.
I guess I should have bought another property back in 2011. Better prices and more inventory to pick from.
It will be interesting to see how the next year or two goes but I’m not going to chase it.
Participant[quote=CA renter]And that ties in very nicely with what we were saying on the other thread about people who can make it big, and then lose it all, too. Very sad. :([/quote]
Yep. Exactly. I mentioned it on the other thread as well. Ironic the timing CAR as we were just talking about this. The really sad thing is there are people like this (albeit not as famous or wealthy) that “gamble” it all away.
Boy she blew through a lot of money quickly. The next time I eat a Breakfast Jack I’ll think of her.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I don’t understand how someone can continue to gamble on a “margin” or a “future-borrowed” acct at a casino in the US, without leaving collateral.It seems as if some casinos are just allowing credit to those whom they think are “good for the money” without any vetting to see if this is really so :=0[/quote]
Believe it. It’s very easy for known gamblers to get very high markers at most casinos. The more known of a big gambler they are, the higher markers they will get. No collateral needed if they know you.
I agree with you that it’s bull$hit that the casinos kept letting her gamble. But they don’t care about people that are addicted to gambling. Also, for all we know, she probably told them she had much more so she could keep gambling so they thought she had almost unlimited funds.
Imagine if you have a reputation of losing millions upon millions of dollars to the casino. They will embrace you, not shun you. That’s how the gambling industry works. You can’t blame them for her losing $50 million.
The entire concept of a casino is to get the “whale” (which she was) to keep betting and coming back over and over. Sure, whales will have their up days. But if you keep gambling long enough, you will always give it back to the house. That’s how the casinos work.
It’s very difficult for people like this to quit while they are ahead and stay away. You will almost NEVER see that happen. And if the numbers are anywhere even close to correct in the newspapers (which who knows if it is) it sounds like she won quite a bit of the time as well but just turned around and lost it. Win/lose/win/lose cycles.
I have friends that are big time gamblers in Vegas. They aren’t addicted to it but I remember one birthday weekend my buddy who was a big time lawyer back home (but a nobody in Vegas) at the time was playing blackjack with me.
He was on the mother of all good luck streaks. He was probably up about $150,000. We had to have been sitting there maybe 10 hours straight. I was up a few thousand and left the table early in the morning. I went to go take a nap and came back a few hours later.
He was still there at the table. Not only did he lose the $150,000 but he got a marker for another $50,000 that he lost. He said he only showed a business card to get the marker. I’m not sure if that was true or not. The casino was just happy that he lost it all and more.
I guess the upside is we did comped for a few free dinners. LOL.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=earlyretirement] NO, no way the Jack in the Box fortune was anything like a billion. [/quote]
Just a bit of SD history. Robert Peterson sold Jack in the Box to Ralston Purina more than 45 years ago. By that time, he’d already opened a bank, (I’m pretty sure it was Southern California First National Bank) one of the more successful local banks in SD history. After a few name changes, it’s currently Union Bank. Peterson gave away 10’s of millions during his lifetime. Otherwise, the Jack in the Box fortune could very easily have been worth $1B today.[/quote]
Interesting and fascinating.
I also read that he filed for divorce in 1985 but they reconciled. I never really believed in fate and that our lives/futures are pre-destined but maybe ultimately she was destined not to have this fortune.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=earlyretirement]…Man, this was before my time but she must have really had people in their hearts with that attitude.[/quote]
ER, Mayor Mo was a SD Native and loved SD. Everybody that knew of her accomplishments knows that.[/quote]
Yeah. I get that. That’s my point. I think they are letting that cloud their judgment on this.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
The brain tumor is the only thing that explains this bizarre behavior.
.[/quote]
I thought your last post BG was great and I agree wholeheartedly with you except for this part above.
Actually I’d disagree that “a brain tumor is the only thing that explains this bizarre behavior”.
Like you, I’ve known several people that got addicted to gambling of some form. I don’t know all the details but personally I don’t think you need a brain tumor to get addicted like she did and squander it.
Yes, it’s VERY sad to see her fall from grace. But I still say that there are people like her with very big fortunes that take risks and “gamble” it all away. Whether it’s in a casino or Wall Street. There are people that squander large fortunes. Happens everyday. This is just a high profile version of it.
I’m actually surprised to read on a few blogs where people trying to explain this away as “it had to have been a brain tumor”. Man, this was before my time but she must have really had people in their hearts with that attitude.
ParticipantYeah BG. I saw that. It sounds like they will get made whole and admittedly if she really does have a brain tumor and she only has a few years to live then jail probably isn’t the best place for her. I can’t see any scenarios where she will do jail time. These kind of people typically get off.
It’s sad the fall from grace. Oh well….just another example of someone squandering their inheritance.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
You know usually I would agree with you. For those that knew her when she was mayor here, it is mind boggling. Something like a brain tumor is the only thing that makes any sense. If it was diagnosed in 2011, she could have had it for a decade.And the article says she won and lost a billion, or something like that. She had a lot of money, (most all inherited from her late husband, one of the founders of Jack in the Box) but nothing like a billion.[/quote]
I’m not even saying she was a bad attorney or a bad mayor because from most accounts she was good at both.
But NO way I’m going to buy that a “brain tumor made her do it”. Anyone that buys that story is gullible, IMHO.
I think the story was exaggerating a bit and sensationalizing it. I think they meant she won and lost and gambled repeatedly over the course of many years. So they are counting many years of winning and losing. NO, no way the Jack in the Box fortune was anything like a billion. From most accounts it was no more than $50 million.
I do agree she probably started gambling from depression when her husband passed away. But NO way I’m going to buy that any possible brain tumor made her do it. And I’m not disputing she might have had the brain tumor earlier and it was not diagnosed.
But let’s call a spade a spade. She just got addicted to gambling. Happens to a lot of people. It doesn’t take a brain tumor to turn you into a degenerate gambler. It’s sad that this happened to her. But I guess the point of why I brought it up, which shouldn’t get lost, is just one example of many where people have huge sums of money and just squander it away thinking they can turn their pot into a bigger pot. Happens everyday.
In this case it was gambling on video poker. But with other people it’s just gambling in the stock market or other “good idea”.
ParticipantOh well. I guess this makes more sense now!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/maureen-oconnor-gambling-losses-billion_n_2688929.html
Participant[quote=spdrun]BWAHAHAHAHAHA! *schnarff*
This makes NYC (soda-boy Bloomberg) and Chicago politicians seem positively sane. Thanks for the larf.[/quote]
Yeah. I laughed when I read that “brain tumor made me do it”. The brain tumor was only diagnosed in 2011. She is a degenerate gambler. Nothing less nothing more.
This goes along the same lines of what some of us were talking about before. People always seem to think they can grow their pot even larger. Sounds like she did pretty well for a while if she truly did win and lose a billion in 10 years. It says she started gambling in 2001 but who knows when it really began. But the thing with degenerate gamblers and their ilk is they rarely are able to “walk away from the table”. Then they loss it all.
And no doubt she spent countless hours telling friends how much she “won” and all the great poker hands she had. But something tells me she never told them about the ones she lost. Ouch!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/maureen-oconnor-gambling-losses-billion_n_2688929.html
-
AuthorPosts
