[investor]

[quote=walterwhite]What if there were some way to get potential buyers organized to extinguish demand for one week. It might have no more effect than a one week gasoline strike, but it would be an interesting consciousness raiser. all buyers would have no loayalty to each other and would of course pounce on the first good deal while the competition was oon strike, but imagine the press. it could be kinda neat.[/quote]
Bearishgirl, I feel your frustration. The elimination of mark to market in 2009 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marktomarket.asp allows banks to have those depreciated assets on their books and not realize the loss until they sell. This is why there is so much shadow inventory. Banks don’t want to sell since they only realize the loss if they do sell. Granted, mark to market was rapidly lowering the housing market before 2009 http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/29/mark-to-market-oped-cx_ng_0929gingrich.html but this is an example of the government potentially making things worse as investors don’t know what the real value of homes are with so much shadow inventory out there.

[investor]

[quote=walterwhite]What if there were some way to get potential buyers organized to extinguish demand for one week. It might have no more effect than a one week gasoline strike, but it would be an interesting consciousness raiser. all buyers would have no loayalty to each other and would of course pounce on the first good deal while the competition was oon strike, but imagine the press. it could be kinda neat.[/quote]
Bearishgirl, I feel your frustration. The elimination of mark to market in 2009 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marktomarket.asp allows banks to have those depreciated assets on their books and not realize the loss until they sell. This is why there is so much shadow inventory. Banks don’t want to sell since they only realize the loss if they do sell. Granted, mark to market was rapidly lowering the housing market before 2009 http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/29/mark-to-market-oped-cx_ng_0929gingrich.html but this is an example of the government potentially making things worse as investors don’t know what the real value of homes are with so much shadow inventory out there.

[investor]

[quote=walterwhite]What if there were some way to get potential buyers organized to extinguish demand for one week. It might have no more effect than a one week gasoline strike, but it would be an interesting consciousness raiser. all buyers would have no loayalty to each other and would of course pounce on the first good deal while the competition was oon strike, but imagine the press. it could be kinda neat.[/quote]
Bearishgirl, I feel your frustration. The elimination of mark to market in 2009 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marktomarket.asp allows banks to have those depreciated assets on their books and not realize the loss until they sell. This is why there is so much shadow inventory. Banks don’t want to sell since they only realize the loss if they do sell. Granted, mark to market was rapidly lowering the housing market before 2009 http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/29/mark-to-market-oped-cx_ng_0929gingrich.html but this is an example of the government potentially making things worse as investors don’t know what the real value of homes are with so much shadow inventory out there.

[investor]

[quote=walterwhite]What if there were some way to get potential buyers organized to extinguish demand for one week. It might have no more effect than a one week gasoline strike, but it would be an interesting consciousness raiser. all buyers would have no loayalty to each other and would of course pounce on the first good deal while the competition was oon strike, but imagine the press. it could be kinda neat.[/quote]
Bearishgirl, I feel your frustration. The elimination of mark to market in 2009 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marktomarket.asp allows banks to have those depreciated assets on their books and not realize the loss until they sell. This is why there is so much shadow inventory. Banks don’t want to sell since they only realize the loss if they do sell. Granted, mark to market was rapidly lowering the housing market before 2009 http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/29/mark-to-market-oped-cx_ng_0929gingrich.html but this is an example of the government potentially making things worse as investors don’t know what the real value of homes are with so much shadow inventory out there.

[investor]

[quote=walterwhite]What if there were some way to get potential buyers organized to extinguish demand for one week. It might have no more effect than a one week gasoline strike, but it would be an interesting consciousness raiser. all buyers would have no loayalty to each other and would of course pounce on the first good deal while the competition was oon strike, but imagine the press. it could be kinda neat.[/quote]
Bearishgirl, I feel your frustration. The elimination of mark to market in 2009 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marktomarket.asp allows banks to have those depreciated assets on their books and not realize the loss until they sell. This is why there is so much shadow inventory. Banks don’t want to sell since they only realize the loss if they do sell. Granted, mark to market was rapidly lowering the housing market before 2009 http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/29/mark-to-market-oped-cx_ng_0929gingrich.html but this is an example of the government potentially making things worse as investors don’t know what the real value of homes are with so much shadow inventory out there.

[investor]

[quote=Eugene]To me this looks like misleading accounting with the intent to make the government look bad.

For example, people whose jobs were saved because of $70 mln in DPW spending obviously did not earn $1.5 million/year. Where is the money? Two thirds of the DPW stimulus budget involved street resurfacing projects. There are substantial costs associated with these projects, in addition to direct labor costs, (e.g. equipment rental and raw materials) and you can’t say that spending money to buy asphalt and rent heavy equipment does not create jobs. Were all these jobs counted correctly? I bet they weren’t.

About those traffic lights. Notice that the cost quoted is ‘per location’. At a typical intersection, there are at least eight normal traffic lights (x3 or 4 light bulbs each), + pedestrian traffic lights. One traffic-light-sized LED light bulb can cost on the order of $100. So $5000 per intersection, including labor, seems reasonable. Again, where does most of the money go? To light bulb manufacturers. Those are probably located in the United States because of the ‘buy American’ provision in the stimulus bill (Republicans wanted to take it out, but failed). Did anyone count jobs saved and created in the company that produced and supplied light bulbs, and in the company that produced raw materials for those light bulbs …? Evidently not.[/quote]
Eugene. With all due respect, you have got to be kidding. Are you actually defending ANY government in not being wasteful? I spent 5 years in the USAF, probably the best run government organization (the military not just the air force) and every august, we were given a dream list of things to buy just so we would not have our budget reduced for the next year. If you ran your flight/squadron efficiently, you were penalized by having your budget decreased for the next year. EVERYONE did it. It is institutionalized and will never be routed out since the motives are the opposite of what they should be. This is just one example. Think about the lobby money that buys bridges to nowhere and you are beginning to see why all governments are very wasteful. The only way to reduce the waste is to reduce the size of government to its smallest size possible. I do believe in a safety net for society but to defend criticism of the wasteful government….. Bulbs being produced in America, when they are made on an assembly line by the thousands cannot account for many jobs either. I do applaud your independent thinking though. Keep that up.

[investor]

[quote=Eugene]To me this looks like misleading accounting with the intent to make the government look bad.

For example, people whose jobs were saved because of $70 mln in DPW spending obviously did not earn $1.5 million/year. Where is the money? Two thirds of the DPW stimulus budget involved street resurfacing projects. There are substantial costs associated with these projects, in addition to direct labor costs, (e.g. equipment rental and raw materials) and you can’t say that spending money to buy asphalt and rent heavy equipment does not create jobs. Were all these jobs counted correctly? I bet they weren’t.

About those traffic lights. Notice that the cost quoted is ‘per location’. At a typical intersection, there are at least eight normal traffic lights (x3 or 4 light bulbs each), + pedestrian traffic lights. One traffic-light-sized LED light bulb can cost on the order of $100. So $5000 per intersection, including labor, seems reasonable. Again, where does most of the money go? To light bulb manufacturers. Those are probably located in the United States because of the ‘buy American’ provision in the stimulus bill (Republicans wanted to take it out, but failed). Did anyone count jobs saved and created in the company that produced and supplied light bulbs, and in the company that produced raw materials for those light bulbs …? Evidently not.[/quote]
Eugene. With all due respect, you have got to be kidding. Are you actually defending ANY government in not being wasteful? I spent 5 years in the USAF, probably the best run government organization (the military not just the air force) and every august, we were given a dream list of things to buy just so we would not have our budget reduced for the next year. If you ran your flight/squadron efficiently, you were penalized by having your budget decreased for the next year. EVERYONE did it. It is institutionalized and will never be routed out since the motives are the opposite of what they should be. This is just one example. Think about the lobby money that buys bridges to nowhere and you are beginning to see why all governments are very wasteful. The only way to reduce the waste is to reduce the size of government to its smallest size possible. I do believe in a safety net for society but to defend criticism of the wasteful government….. Bulbs being produced in America, when they are made on an assembly line by the thousands cannot account for many jobs either. I do applaud your independent thinking though. Keep that up.

[investor]

[quote=Eugene]To me this looks like misleading accounting with the intent to make the government look bad.

For example, people whose jobs were saved because of $70 mln in DPW spending obviously did not earn $1.5 million/year. Where is the money? Two thirds of the DPW stimulus budget involved street resurfacing projects. There are substantial costs associated with these projects, in addition to direct labor costs, (e.g. equipment rental and raw materials) and you can’t say that spending money to buy asphalt and rent heavy equipment does not create jobs. Were all these jobs counted correctly? I bet they weren’t.

About those traffic lights. Notice that the cost quoted is ‘per location’. At a typical intersection, there are at least eight normal traffic lights (x3 or 4 light bulbs each), + pedestrian traffic lights. One traffic-light-sized LED light bulb can cost on the order of $100. So $5000 per intersection, including labor, seems reasonable. Again, where does most of the money go? To light bulb manufacturers. Those are probably located in the United States because of the ‘buy American’ provision in the stimulus bill (Republicans wanted to take it out, but failed). Did anyone count jobs saved and created in the company that produced and supplied light bulbs, and in the company that produced raw materials for those light bulbs …? Evidently not.[/quote]
Eugene. With all due respect, you have got to be kidding. Are you actually defending ANY government in not being wasteful? I spent 5 years in the USAF, probably the best run government organization (the military not just the air force) and every august, we were given a dream list of things to buy just so we would not have our budget reduced for the next year. If you ran your flight/squadron efficiently, you were penalized by having your budget decreased for the next year. EVERYONE did it. It is institutionalized and will never be routed out since the motives are the opposite of what they should be. This is just one example. Think about the lobby money that buys bridges to nowhere and you are beginning to see why all governments are very wasteful. The only way to reduce the waste is to reduce the size of government to its smallest size possible. I do believe in a safety net for society but to defend criticism of the wasteful government….. Bulbs being produced in America, when they are made on an assembly line by the thousands cannot account for many jobs either. I do applaud your independent thinking though. Keep that up.

[investor]

[quote=Eugene]To me this looks like misleading accounting with the intent to make the government look bad.

For example, people whose jobs were saved because of $70 mln in DPW spending obviously did not earn $1.5 million/year. Where is the money? Two thirds of the DPW stimulus budget involved street resurfacing projects. There are substantial costs associated with these projects, in addition to direct labor costs, (e.g. equipment rental and raw materials) and you can’t say that spending money to buy asphalt and rent heavy equipment does not create jobs. Were all these jobs counted correctly? I bet they weren’t.

About those traffic lights. Notice that the cost quoted is ‘per location’. At a typical intersection, there are at least eight normal traffic lights (x3 or 4 light bulbs each), + pedestrian traffic lights. One traffic-light-sized LED light bulb can cost on the order of $100. So $5000 per intersection, including labor, seems reasonable. Again, where does most of the money go? To light bulb manufacturers. Those are probably located in the United States because of the ‘buy American’ provision in the stimulus bill (Republicans wanted to take it out, but failed). Did anyone count jobs saved and created in the company that produced and supplied light bulbs, and in the company that produced raw materials for those light bulbs …? Evidently not.[/quote]
Eugene. With all due respect, you have got to be kidding. Are you actually defending ANY government in not being wasteful? I spent 5 years in the USAF, probably the best run government organization (the military not just the air force) and every august, we were given a dream list of things to buy just so we would not have our budget reduced for the next year. If you ran your flight/squadron efficiently, you were penalized by having your budget decreased for the next year. EVERYONE did it. It is institutionalized and will never be routed out since the motives are the opposite of what they should be. This is just one example. Think about the lobby money that buys bridges to nowhere and you are beginning to see why all governments are very wasteful. The only way to reduce the waste is to reduce the size of government to its smallest size possible. I do believe in a safety net for society but to defend criticism of the wasteful government….. Bulbs being produced in America, when they are made on an assembly line by the thousands cannot account for many jobs either. I do applaud your independent thinking though. Keep that up.

[investor]

[quote=Eugene]To me this looks like misleading accounting with the intent to make the government look bad.

For example, people whose jobs were saved because of $70 mln in DPW spending obviously did not earn $1.5 million/year. Where is the money? Two thirds of the DPW stimulus budget involved street resurfacing projects. There are substantial costs associated with these projects, in addition to direct labor costs, (e.g. equipment rental and raw materials) and you can’t say that spending money to buy asphalt and rent heavy equipment does not create jobs. Were all these jobs counted correctly? I bet they weren’t.

About those traffic lights. Notice that the cost quoted is ‘per location’. At a typical intersection, there are at least eight normal traffic lights (x3 or 4 light bulbs each), + pedestrian traffic lights. One traffic-light-sized LED light bulb can cost on the order of $100. So $5000 per intersection, including labor, seems reasonable. Again, where does most of the money go? To light bulb manufacturers. Those are probably located in the United States because of the ‘buy American’ provision in the stimulus bill (Republicans wanted to take it out, but failed). Did anyone count jobs saved and created in the company that produced and supplied light bulbs, and in the company that produced raw materials for those light bulbs …? Evidently not.[/quote]
Eugene. With all due respect, you have got to be kidding. Are you actually defending ANY government in not being wasteful? I spent 5 years in the USAF, probably the best run government organization (the military not just the air force) and every august, we were given a dream list of things to buy just so we would not have our budget reduced for the next year. If you ran your flight/squadron efficiently, you were penalized by having your budget decreased for the next year. EVERYONE did it. It is institutionalized and will never be routed out since the motives are the opposite of what they should be. This is just one example. Think about the lobby money that buys bridges to nowhere and you are beginning to see why all governments are very wasteful. The only way to reduce the waste is to reduce the size of government to its smallest size possible. I do believe in a safety net for society but to defend criticism of the wasteful government….. Bulbs being produced in America, when they are made on an assembly line by the thousands cannot account for many jobs either. I do applaud your independent thinking though. Keep that up.

[investor]

[quote=infoseeker]Recourse in Money Lending business is difficult. Going after folks defaulting on loan is a risky business… the same issues you will have as with prosper.com. Failure of payment of rent is easier to deal with since eviction of people from rental property is easy compared to a “owned” property. People’s emotional attachment to rental property is less than “owned” property. In addition to cash-on-cash ROI, renting also provides the long term gains that comes with asset appreciation. Depreciation tax write off is an additional advantage of renting.[/quote]
Well, good points. First, I agree with another investor blogger in that you should only invest for cash flow, not taking into account depreciation. Although depreciation is a nice bonus, it should not be taken into the cash flow study when you buy. I’m not sure about being more difficult to get your home back if you sell it. Cali has pretty strong tenant laws. I believe that it might be easier to get a home back though non-payment of the mortgage than eviction from non-payment of rent. The fact that people have less attachment to rentals is a positive for being the mortgage holder rather than a renter. I always include that the tenent will kick in the first$100 on any repair as a way to reduce silly tenant calls.

[investor]

[quote=infoseeker]Recourse in Money Lending business is difficult. Going after folks defaulting on loan is a risky business… the same issues you will have as with prosper.com. Failure of payment of rent is easier to deal with since eviction of people from rental property is easy compared to a “owned” property. People’s emotional attachment to rental property is less than “owned” property. In addition to cash-on-cash ROI, renting also provides the long term gains that comes with asset appreciation. Depreciation tax write off is an additional advantage of renting.[/quote]
Well, good points. First, I agree with another investor blogger in that you should only invest for cash flow, not taking into account depreciation. Although depreciation is a nice bonus, it should not be taken into the cash flow study when you buy. I’m not sure about being more difficult to get your home back if you sell it. Cali has pretty strong tenant laws. I believe that it might be easier to get a home back though non-payment of the mortgage than eviction from non-payment of rent. The fact that people have less attachment to rentals is a positive for being the mortgage holder rather than a renter. I always include that the tenent will kick in the first$100 on any repair as a way to reduce silly tenant calls.

[investor]

[quote=infoseeker]Recourse in Money Lending business is difficult. Going after folks defaulting on loan is a risky business… the same issues you will have as with prosper.com. Failure of payment of rent is easier to deal with since eviction of people from rental property is easy compared to a “owned” property. People’s emotional attachment to rental property is less than “owned” property. In addition to cash-on-cash ROI, renting also provides the long term gains that comes with asset appreciation. Depreciation tax write off is an additional advantage of renting.[/quote]
Well, good points. First, I agree with another investor blogger in that you should only invest for cash flow, not taking into account depreciation. Although depreciation is a nice bonus, it should not be taken into the cash flow study when you buy. I’m not sure about being more difficult to get your home back if you sell it. Cali has pretty strong tenant laws. I believe that it might be easier to get a home back though non-payment of the mortgage than eviction from non-payment of rent. The fact that people have less attachment to rentals is a positive for being the mortgage holder rather than a renter. I always include that the tenent will kick in the first$100 on any repair as a way to reduce silly tenant calls.

[investor]

[quote=infoseeker]Recourse in Money Lending business is difficult. Going after folks defaulting on loan is a risky business… the same issues you will have as with prosper.com. Failure of payment of rent is easier to deal with since eviction of people from rental property is easy compared to a “owned” property. People’s emotional attachment to rental property is less than “owned” property. In addition to cash-on-cash ROI, renting also provides the long term gains that comes with asset appreciation. Depreciation tax write off is an additional advantage of renting.[/quote]
Well, good points. First, I agree with another investor blogger in that you should only invest for cash flow, not taking into account depreciation. Although depreciation is a nice bonus, it should not be taken into the cash flow study when you buy. I’m not sure about being more difficult to get your home back if you sell it. Cali has pretty strong tenant laws. I believe that it might be easier to get a home back though non-payment of the mortgage than eviction from non-payment of rent. The fact that people have less attachment to rentals is a positive for being the mortgage holder rather than a renter. I always include that the tenent will kick in the first$100 on any repair as a way to reduce silly tenant calls.

[investor]

[quote=infoseeker]Recourse in Money Lending business is difficult. Going after folks defaulting on loan is a risky business… the same issues you will have as with prosper.com. Failure of payment of rent is easier to deal with since eviction of people from rental property is easy compared to a “owned” property. People’s emotional attachment to rental property is less than “owned” property. In addition to cash-on-cash ROI, renting also provides the long term gains that comes with asset appreciation. Depreciation tax write off is an additional advantage of renting.[/quote]
Well, good points. First, I agree with another investor blogger in that you should only invest for cash flow, not taking into account depreciation. Although depreciation is a nice bonus, it should not be taken into the cash flow study when you buy. I’m not sure about being more difficult to get your home back if you sell it. Cali has pretty strong tenant laws. I believe that it might be easier to get a home back though non-payment of the mortgage than eviction from non-payment of rent. The fact that people have less attachment to rentals is a positive for being the mortgage holder rather than a renter. I always include that the tenent will kick in the first$100 on any repair as a way to reduce silly tenant calls.

[Author]

Posts