Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
justme
ParticipantI haven’t read the Blackstone S-1 filing, but it seems to me that when a company that makes money by taking corporations private wants to take *itself* public, instead of floating their private subsidiaries, watch out!! Clearly someone is headed for the exits here.
How are you supposed to value Blackstone’s internal holdings when they are a hodgepodge of “privatized” companies, hedge funds, debt obligations and more.
Does BX have revenue per se? Profits? Dividends? Does it extract the profit of all the subsidiaries that it owns, partially or fully? Will it report them in detail?
It’s almost like creating a mutual fund of itself, minus the transparency of having a market-determined value of what the fund owns. Seems fishy. Especially given that insiders are cashing out some nontrivial holdings directly in the IPO.
ParticipantFolks,
schizo2buyORnot is an obvious shill that has posted two gee-whiz posts about increasing prices or increasing demand today already.
Don’t even bother taking this guy seriously.
Seriously.ParticipantDavid Lereah has discredited the organization and made RE professionals look like jack asses.
Not that they needed any help with that.
ParticipantLA_Renter, good point, but the real impact is not until it gets top billing on the front page with a catchy graphic. That is when middle-America notices, and the rest of the MSM has a talking point that the editor simply cannot dismiss.
ParticipantWhy did it take this “important national magazine” so long to see (or publish) the obvious?
Prediction:
Lots of front pages with cute or scary housing bust graphics, coming soon to a newsstand near you.
Here is how it works: Someone brave has to go first, then the journalists at the other ragamags has something to point to when arguing with their overly risk-averse and conservative editors. The sheep will follow. It always works the same way,
and there are some notable examples the last 6 years.ParticipantRich has saved a lot of people from ruin, Alan Greenspan has not. That makes all the difference. Rich for the Fed, instead of Fed for the Rich!
ParticipantRaybyrnes,
I can’t possible know what you mean by “consolidating a student loan”, but it doesn’t sound anything like getting a rebate on the services of your real-estate broker.
But then, why would someone give you a “rebate” (cash back) for consolidating a loan?
If you are talking about “cancellation of debt”, sure that is taxable a income. Many of the people that foreclose on a house and get their debt canceled by the bank will experience that this year.
Any forgiven loan must be taxed as income. Otherwise your employer would be giving you payday loans each month, and then forgiving them the next (wink-wink). Good for everyone, except the IRS is too smart to let such a loophole exist.
ParticipantRebates are not taxable. A rebate is not income, it is a price break on a good or service that you purchased.
Do you pay income tax because the store sold you something at a sale price? Of course you don’t.
There are realtors that will claim that they cannot give you a rebate because either
a. you don’t have a real estate sales license and therefore it would be illegal to “pay” you for representing yourself.
b. you would have to pay tax on the commission “income”, and “their office just isn’t set up to do that”.
Both a. and b. are total lies.
Repeat after me:
I’m getting a REBATE!
I’m getting a REBATE!
I’m getting a REBATE!There, does everyone feel better now :-).
ParticipantHere is a site that is decent at telling what is going on in the bay area.
http://www.creeksiderealty.com/
Go to the “update” section and look at the February 2 report.
You will see that the “relative strength” that Rich Toscano posted about yesterday has NOT occurred in the bay area in January. Read that again. Not even a dead cat bounce!
Caveat: The narrative at this particular web site reads a little bit like a speech by Alan Greenspan, i.e. it is circumspect so as not to offend anyone (read: sellers and fellow realtors). However, read it carefully and it is clear what Richard Calhoun is really saying.
We’re going DOWN!
Participant5 people per house:
It sounds like they are making the assumption that a family of 5 lives in the house. Children will of course lose the house, too.
The number 5 may be a bit excessive, but it makes the point.
ParticipantWhat is this “pin”? Is it the proverbial membership pin on the lapel of a suit, or something more important?
ParticipantYes, welcome back. Good story.
ParticipantThis rent increase stuff is a bunch of baloney. if you learned anything the last 5 years, it is not to trust the MSM and RE industry reporting of any sort of facts and statistics. Give me a break, people are reporting increased *asking* prices from Craigslist as significant statistics. That’s pure crap.
You can’t prevent landlords from fishing on Craigslist. Whether thery are going to get their numbers is a whole different story.
ParticipantI’m feeling a bit Verklempt.
Talk amongst yourself.I’ll give you a topic:
The Dataquick september numbers are just out.
The SF Bay Area is showing a YOY decline for the
first time in 5 years.Discuss!
(Poway, feel free to move this to a new thread, I don’t know how to do it)
-
AuthorPosts