[lamoneyguy]

Cardiff,
You may receive some criticism for your aversion to majority hispanic neighborhoods. Everyone has their preferences, and that’s why neighborhoods take on a personality. I’m sure many Hispanics are more comfortable in neighborhoods with a large population of other Hispanics.

Given that you are interested in “stale white” you should probably look at the San Fernando Valley. Encino, Tarzana, Woodland Hills, Sherman Oaks, parts of Northridge. Or, further up into Ventura County you will find areas that are mostly White and Asian.

[lamoneyguy]

I’m not sure that in one post you can say that I’m at risk for hitting all 10 lights (meaning that there is risk in some degree for every potential outcome) and then in another post say that not all mortgage loans are “at risk”.

sdrebear, touche. That does appear to be contradictory. I would agree with you if the liklihood of all of the outstanding mortgages had an equal liklihood of defaulting. I have no way of distinguishing between one street light over another. Thus they are all “at risk.” The difference is randomness. Street lights are random, liklihood of mortgage defaults are not.

The problem is that the original author did not define “at risk.” If he had said that an at risk mortgage is over a certain LTV or is scheduled to adjust to a payment that is above a certain percentage of gross household income, then it would be more clear. Out of the total set of outstanding mortgages, any of them can default, but we know that a certain subset defined by parameters such as I named are at higher risk for default.

I agree about the slippery language analysts use to qualify everything they say. I think he could have been more clear by defining “at risk” as I mentioned, and by explaining that a certain percentage of those “at risk” mortgages are expected to default.

An “at risk” high school student may be defined as one who is failing a certain number of classes, has over X number of tardys and absences, and has had disciplinary issues. Some of these kids will not succeed. They will drop out and perhaps get into legal trouble. I certainly do not expect all of them to. Likewise, a student who gets good grades and has not had any problems CAN drop out and get in trouble with the law, but we would not have described this child as “at risk” before that time.

[lamoneyguy]

Both their parents have doctorate degrees. I expect John and Jane to receive a great education then go on to successful careers. There’s no certainty of that happening.

“Expect” does not mean with certainty, rather more like, “in all liklihood,” or “probable.”

Despite both their parents having doctorate degrees, there remains the risk that either John or Jane may fall into the wrong crowd and not attend college. However, I would not expect that to occur.

[lamoneyguy]

That’s what I don’t get. I always hear about selflessness from Christianity. It’s considered a good thing right?

So, why does Jesus require you to pray to him for salvation. Sounds like ego to me.

~<http://www.itsjustmoney.blogs.com">lamoneyguy

[lamoneyguy]

You said that all soldiers are at risk, but we do not “expect” them all to die. But some will. It would be accurate to say that that percentage (some) is truly “at risk” of dying. That is an “expectation”, but certainly not an absolute (either direction, more/less).
-sdrebear

Not all soldiers are in combat situations. Any of them could perish to highly unforseen fire/accident, but the ones that would accurately be described at “at risk” are the ones in combat situations. Then, some amount of loss among those in combat are “expected” to be lost.

Likewise, not all mortgage holders are “at risk” due to ARM resets, etc. Among those that are “at risk” due to ARM resets, etc. some percentage would be “expected” to default.

[lamoneyguy]

I have never lived in Playa Del Rey, but it is an area that has grown tremendously. It is middle-upper income/price. Marina is pretty expensive, but less so once you get inland a bit. On the actual marina you will not find any SFRs, only condos and apartments. My impression of MDR has always been older folks, some artist types with money. MDR would not have a noise problem. I can’t speak to PDR.

[lamoneyguy]

sdrebear,
I disagree. Expectations and risk are completely different terms, especially when applied to economic/financial analysis.

If you have an investment with a 75% chance of yielding a 10% return, and a 25% chance of yielding a -10% return, your expected return is 5%. You are at risk of losing 10%.

In your street light example, you are at risk of being stopped at 10 lights. Your only expect to get stopped at 3 of them.

From Dictionary.com:

risk  /rɪsk/
–noun
1. exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It’s not worth the risk.

You are exposed to 10 lights, not 3.

~lamoneyguy

[lamoneyguy]

Good take avidsaver. You’re right about the proximity to LAX. I lived in that area after college because I was able to find cheap rent, it was close to the South Bay where I had family, and not too far from the Westside, where I worked. That said, it’s not where I would want to buy a $900k 3br house. Not with the constant sight and sound of airplanes overhead.

[lamoneyguy]

I’m not a frequent contributor, but I’m going to throw in my two cents on the semantics debate here. And yes, it is semantics, as most or all here are in agreement that this does not bode well for the housing market or the housing bulls. But semantics are important. Maybe when Lereah says that he thinks that the housing market has bottomed out, he means that sales volume has bottomed, and will rise in a declining price environment. I doubt it, but it’s possible.

“At risk” and “expected” are quite different. “At risk” is a term frequently used to describe Jr. High or High School aged children who are acting out and have had disciplinary issues. If my child were described as “at risk” and another parent, upon hearing that said, “we expect him to wind up in Juvie…” we would have big issues. If I lend a person money, I do so with the expectation that they will pay me back. However, there is the risk that I will get stiffed.

To be fair, sdcellar, PS didn’t say that 1.46mil will certainly default. She said that they are expected to. The truth, it would appear, lies somewhere in the middle.

Even as many homeowners will escape default, it does not mean that they are in the clear. At best, it will pinch their budget, and we will see a decline in consumer spending, mostly affecting retail and construction.

~lamoneyguy

[lamoneyguy]

What kind of lunatic agrees to a $110,000 commission on a million dollar home?

I could be wrong about the purchase price. It may have been quite a bit more. I can tell you that she planned on charging the full 6%, despite representing both sides, selling high end, and the seller being an ex-boyfriend.

~lamoneyguy

[lamoneyguy]

I saw another episode where the blonde realtor was the listing agent for her ex-boyfriend’s 1.1 million dollar place. A lady walk that comes to the open house loves it and expresses interest. The realtor asks if she is working with anyone and signs on to be her buyer’s agent, thus working both sides of the deal. Well, as expected when the buyer and seller don’t agree on some terms she struggles to fairly represent both parties (an impossibility in my estimation).

~lamoneyguy

[lamoneyguy]

If they spoke this way about stocks instead of real estate, their licenses would be suspended or revoked. The only way they would be held legally liable is if it can be proven via emails, internal memos and such that they never believed any of what they are saying. I find that to be highly unlikely.

~lamoneyguy

[lamoneyguy]

I’m not sure that wouldn’t be considered wagering. What’s the difference between that and if both parties placed $100k in an escrow account to go to party who picked the winner of the Super Bowl? Interesting thought though, housing bubble insurance.

~lamoneyguy

[lamoneyguy]

Accountability for the Realtor shills is unlikely, although not impossible. Some of the key stock market “perma-bull” figures of the late 90s:

Mary Meeker, dubbed the “Queen of the Net” not for any contribution, other than duping people to dump capital into the sector. Today she is a managing director at Morgan Stanley.

Henry Blodget, gained fame after his Amazon price target of $400 came to fruition. Blodget was charged with securities fraud and is banned from the securities industry.

James Glassman, co-author of Dow 36,000 published on October 1999. Most baffling of all, Glassman is currently a columnist for Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine.

Kevin Hasset, co-author of Dow 36,000. Kevin is the Director of Economic Policy Studies for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (whatever that is), and writes a column for Bloomberg. Best of all, he published another book in 2002, called Bubbleology!

Anyway, the point is, other than Blodget they are all doing just fine. And I don’t know what Blodget is up to, I’m sure he’s perfectly fine, wherever he is.

~lamoneyguy

[lamoneyguy]

Valued at $1,348,450 starting Bid is $967,975 or best Reasonable Offer

Who is to say what it is “valued” at? Isn’t that up to the market? Apparently he has been unable to sell it at that price, so that makes me think that’s not its true value. Also, the starting bid is still an awful large amount of money. I’m sure the seller would be happy to unload at that price.

Also, the property does not appear on zillow. When you put the address into google maps, you get pointed to the space between two homes that have different addresses. Weird.

~lamoneyguy

[Author]

Posts