Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
jztz
ParticipantSD Realtor said: “One common theme is that in all of the cases be it short sales or REO properties there seems to be severe reluctance on the part of the bank to negotiate. It is disappointing.”
Could it be that it’s still early? I wonder how these are counted for on their books, and what those bankers’ incentives are at this point. They can be rewarded for two things: a) value sold (hence their strong negotiation stance); and/or b) % of such assets disposed (if the amount of foreclosure increases and time drags on)… my sense is that it’s still too early.
I guess in spring we’ll really know what shape the SD real estate market is in.
ParticipantConspiracy? or Searching for Truth?
Please read the following before you call those of us who question as having a taste for conspiracy.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
The fact is, you can either see with your own eyes what doesn’t make sense (twin towers and WTC7’s implosions explained aways by merely airplane impact), or read about other people with credentials who have digged into deeper… now I’m hopeful that the truth will come out someday.
Participant“Don’t let De Beers fool you that just because some diamonds aren’t, they are clean.” — I read about blood diamonds and De Beers’ effective control of the diamond trade a while back and decided that I’d never buy/wear a piece of diamond. Why would anyone buy into a shopping budget guideline -“3 Month salary” promoted by a retailer/vendor? No wonder so many people are in debt.
Also, taking a high price for beauty/worth reflects a lack of creativity.
I also read about how much debt the current college grads are carrying upon graduation. There is no question that college costs have skyrocketed, but looking at some of the debt number I can’t help but think that these kids probably lived a middle-class lifestyle that they were used to while in college financed by debt. I wonder how many of them will follow that 3-month salary guideline when they need every penny to meet living expenses and paying their student loans.
ParticipantThere is still a lot of liquidity in the global financial market searching for returns. As long as that persists, then there will be lenders willing to extend risky loans (because cheap money is available), and as long as lenders are willing to continue to extend risky loans, then housing prices will not drop drastically.
It also happens that there are a lot of financial players (hedge fund, private equity funds) who are highly leveraged, because volatility has been low. In fact, high risk assets (emerging market debt, junk debt) have very low spread currently. How does it relate to housing? In comparison, a mortgage backed security seems like a “safe” bet with decent yield. After all, it has the house as collateral and may have mortgage insurance and/or Fannie or Freddie’s guarantees.
I really believe that the global financial markets are operating on the edge. Although no one knows what may tip it over and when, it seems that sooner or later risky assets will need to have higher yield — once the market demands that, no lender can afford to extend easy loans anymore.
Participantsalo_t, I didn’t know other aspects about the Pentagon crash. You mean they didn’t discover bodies of the passengers who were supposed to be on that airplane?
For those who’re interested in this matter in a serious way, here is the official version — read the FAQs,
http://wtc.nist.gov/THen read those disputing the NIST’s answers (right, roll down)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Rationally, I believe that the WTC implosion (collapse is not the right words, ’cause the buildings didn’t simply collapse, they imploded) can’t be caused 100% by the planes. Emotionally, I don’t know where I am — this is just too hard to believe.
ParticipantI agree with Borat, that the video snapshot was not frequent enough to capture a fast approaching airplane. Unfortunately, sometimes people throw in too many things that are slightly suspicious, but are quite explannable.
The biggest question marks for me are: a) how could all three buildings collaspe straight down with all signatures of a controlled demolition but none of a pure “pancaking” collapse due to some structural damage and gravity? Note that demolition requires well placed engergy sources to blow things up — what was how those WTCs went down. What provided that energy? not jetfuel ’cause they were burned quickly (the initial fireballs). Even if the jetfuel provided some energy, the mix (fuel + Oxygen) was random (Oxygen was lacking as seen from black smoke) and concentrated at the impact site, not evenly distributed as it happened. b) why would there be smolten steel with residue of high-temperature demolition material? These facts require scientific investigation.
Another sign that makes the official story very suspicious was that they want to avoid these scientific investigation as much as possible. The formal report from National Institution of Standard (I think) stopped at explaining why the buildings collapse the way they did. In another word, it basically said that the planes likely made the structures weak and that led to collapse. Then it stopped there. If these weren’t controlled demolitions, then the government should organize the best scientists/engineers trying to figure it out why and how. But a formal report that didn’t even touch on why the buildings collapsed the way they did?
ParticipantPD — no need to insinulate a new conspiracy here — I’m not PS! (well, if there is another meet-up and I have no conflict, I will show up so you’ll see)
I just read (or rather skimmed) the 48-report by Steven Jones (http://www.st911.org/). Again, it’s chilling. The official report doesn’t add up. Now if the official explanation (fire & heat) has real leg then it’s fairly easy to dispute all this (the report is talking about facts and how law of physics can’t explain it). But I haven’t seen any yet. I was trained in science and engineering, so I’d like to approach this as a forensic project — to find out what happened. In fact, not finding out is totoally irresponsible given that the collapses of the twin tower is the worst structural disaster (if the official story is true) so far.
Again, I thank PS because she brought this up. If true, the enormity of this is just mind-boggling!
No need to jump into an argument — just read the report, and watch some videos. Like PS, I’d like to know “the other side” of the story told in a scientifically rigorous way rather than a qucik dismal because it appears absurd. In fact, for me, now the official story appears rather absurd.
PerryChase, you said earlier that you’d do some research on this topic, please post if you find something interesting.
ParticipantPS, thanks for posting it.
I just watched the full video, and it created chills.
Although I don’t fully subscribe all the “conspiracy theory” especially regarding motives, I can’t help but think that the official story is not to be believed.
I suggest to anyone who wants to discuss this not to speak from your political point of view, and/or just discuss it from superficial level. (zk — I always like your arguments, but I think that here you jump the gun in your quick dismissal). For example, someone said that the theory couldn’t be because just one person knew — of course it couldn’t be. But with suppression, maybe only a few are daring to speaking out. Afer all, at one point, there was only one whitsleblower at Enron.
The twin towers’ collapses were such surreal sights that most of us were overwhelmed by the emotional/psychological shock, and almost too easy to be led to believe. Time for vigorous questioning. Thanks, PS.
ParticipantThere are different margins.
Gross margin = sales – (building cost + land + development)
So you’re all correct. Gross margin ranges about 23% to 30% without writedowns. So. Cal has been a high margin region for builders, so during bubble time, gross margin should approach 30%. The $90 to $110 building cost should be within the range, too. But Land cost and development costs (to get various permit, road, sewage, telecom, etc) are costs not considered in previous posts. That’s how these numbers reconcile. That is, $300 (sales price/sq) = $100 (building cost) + $110 (land and development cost) + $90 (builder gross profit)What builders make (operating profit, before tax) is Gross profit – administrative and selling costs (including salary/commission for that agent!). The average has been 8% to 10% of sales price. So the builder will make $90 (gross profit) – $30 (10% of selling costs) = $60/sq.
So a builder should be willing to go as low as 20% lower if that is that takes to get rid of inventory and get back their investment in cash. But a desparate builder that’s selling the last few houses in a development should be willing to take an even lower price — because marginal costs is lower than the above calculation.
Realtors — what’re the average price/sq in San Diego in different neighborhoods?
-
AuthorPosts