Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
livinincali
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Of course, flyer. But what troubles me about this scenario is that OP states his “client” already OWNS a condo with $75K in equity. Presuming it is paid off, why does she want to change things now? The only reason I can see would be to live out her remaining years in a much more expensive locale.
[/quote]I don’t think the condo is paid off. Essentially I don’t think she can afford to live where she might like. It’s really the bottom line of this whole thing.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Giving the nomination to Kasich would demoralize Republican voters and they will stay home. Trump is getting low-education Whites to come out and vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/donald-trump-will-get-more-primary-votes-than-anyone-in-history-because-more-people-are-voting/I have the feeling Hillary will win by a landslide. You go girl![/quote]
If the republican party does anything that isn’t nominating Trump and backing him hard they’re are likely to lose the election in a landslide. If they do nominate Trump and get behind him I think we could see an interesting close election.
ParticipantHard to say just based on the one review. Is it a deal that looks a little too good to be true as well.
Participant[quote=5yearwaiter][quote=svelte]So Cruz picks Fiorina for VP. In April.
This sure looks like a Hail Mary pass out of desperation.
If he doesn’t take Indiana next Tuesday, I don’t think there is any stopping Trump.[/quote]
Even if Cruz holds Indiana I believe it is bit hard to stop Trump. How many delegates he gets from Indiana and how the math looks to stop Trump? Trump needs only 300 and there are still 632 remained for elections including Indiana.[/quote]
Most of the projections I’ve seen show Trump needing to win Indiana to be assured to getting to 1237. There are other ways including getting some of the unbound delegates (i.e. PA). Cruz can’t get there mathematically. Only way he gets the nomination is through a brokered convention. If it gets to that point the republican establishment would probably try to do some back room deal giving the nomination to Kasich. Kasich is far more likely to win at the national level compared to Cruz.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
b) Take a loan for 75K and have immediate cash flow of maybe $600 – 700 per month.
[/quote]I forgot about that aspect of the deal as well. You aren’t even cash flowing. You have to wait until the end of the deal before you see any money.
Probably best to just advise your client to move to a lower cost of living state. Albuquerque, NM might be a good option. Property taxes are low you can get a condo for < $75K. Climate is pretty nice year round although it is at elevation. You aren't staying in San Diego for the kids or grand kids.
ParticipantI ran some numbers and it looks like a terrible deal for an investor. Let’s compare it to the obvious alternative. Somebody investing in a rental property with a cap rate of 5% after all expenses. That way we can ignore the appreciation aspect of real estate (both investments would appreciate the same). So if you assume investing $275K and a 5% cap rate you collect $13,500 per year in rent. Here’s what 10 year of collecting rent looks like.
Year Total Rent Collected
1 13750
2 27500
3 41250
4 55000
5 68750
6 82500
7 96250
8 110000
9 123750
10 137500This lady is giving $75K in equity so what this means is right after year 5 as an investor you would have been better off just buying the property outright and renting it rather than entering this deal. In addition this investment is completely illiquid while a investment in rental property is liquid. You’d probably want a better return for the illiquid aspect of the the deal. It’s great for the lady is she can find an investor dumb enough to enter into this kind of arrangement.
Participant[quote=zk]
Winning elections does not mean that you know what you’re doing. Unless your only goal is winning elections. Which is exactly the problem with republicans. They’re not interested in running the country, they’re interested in winning elections. And why are they winning elections, even if they can’t govern? Two main reasons, in my opinion: Gerrymandering of districts, and the right-wing noise machine’s brilliant manipulation of the emotions of millions Americans. Americans who are, thanks to that manipulation, far angrier and more fearful than they need to be, but whose concocted fear and anger play right into republicans’ hands.[/quote]I don’t think Democrats or Republicans do a significantly better job of governing. Most of the progress made on LGBT rights has been through the Judicial system. CA did vote to ban gay marriage when Obama was initially elected in 2008. Prop 8 got Yes votes from nearly 80% of the black vote which also voted almost exclusively for Obama. Different issues matter for different people. It’s interesting that a minority group would vote for Obama in an belief that he would progress on their agenda but vote against another group of minorities in the LGBT community..
The last major piece of federal legislation that came from an all controlled executive and congress was Obamacare by the democrats. I don’t think even the supporters of Obamacare think that it is a really good piece of successful legislation as it stands now. Everybody wants to make changes to it. Even Obama himself is postponing that negative/bad parts of the law, so certainly it isn’t perfect as it stands now. Maybe it’s a step towards the progressive single payer dream, but wouldn’t have been a lot more successful governing if you actually went down that path from the get go.
Participant[quote=AN]
As for Lithium… http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/04/14/tesla-tech-icons-scramble-lithium-prices-double/83034300/
Supply is already at a constraint and BEV aren’t even scratching the surface yet.[/quote]I’ve done a little bit of research into the lithium production problem and it does seem like it’s going to be an issue at some point. I thought maybe it wouldn’t be an issue since I really don’t expect Tesla to get to it’s lofty annual production numbers, but if they do then it’s a real problem. Of course if the demand goes up rapidly before mining investments can be made then prices of Lithium will soar. At least until it becomes so uncompetitive that nobody is willing to buy EVs at that price point.
If you really believe in the EV future and want to profiteer a bit take a look at stock ticket LIT (ETF for lithium prices). Doesn’t look like a great buy right now, because you’d probably like to see it pull back a bit first but who knows.
The other problem for Tesla and the model 3 is that the federal tax credits for EVs manufactured by Tesla are going to expire fairly soon (Federal tax credit for EVs are limited to the first 200K units produced by an auto maker). Tesla already close to 100K vehicles produced so only another 100K of their units are eligible for a tax credit. Congress could extend the tax credits but I don’t know that they will. I don’t know about any sort of CA tax credit for EV. That might have different parameters.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Autonomous cars will be unlikely to draft. The “cars following a foot from each other” thing is a myth. Any autonomous car would have to be as safe as possible for the manufacturer to avoid lawsuits. Even if you remove reaction time, braking distances vary significantly between vehicles, even vehicles of the same type (depending on load, tires, etc). Following distances might be slightly reduced, but not enough to draft.[/quote]
They are already testing platooning/drafting autonomous trucks in Europe. Maybe not drafting to the degree that is optimally efficient but enough to get some fuel/power saving efficiency.
Participant[quote=AN]If every car is autonomous, I’m sure it would be safe for every car to be traveling at >100MPH, since they all will know where other cars around them are and where they’re going, so there would never be any surprise.[/quote]
It might be safe but it wouldn’t be efficient. Cars traveling at 100+ mph use up a a lot more fuel/energy than a car traveling at 55 to 65 mphs. Autonomous cars should be able to draft better though.
As for high speed rail. I like the idea of it but I don’t know that the cost of California’s project is worth it. Last I heard the project was going to be over $100 billion. That just doesn’t seem to be worth it.
Participant[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]
In my post I mentioned my child will be driving in 7 years (at best). Assuming that in 7 years my Model 3 will be heavily used for 3-4 years, the car will probably be valued in the high teens on resale. A new corolla runs roughly 17k and up. My first car was a hand-me-down Jeep Grand Cherokee. When the Jeep was new, the car was pushing 30K but it was used and probably valued in the high teens when it was handed over to me.. Pumping cash into that thing weekly sucked as a teen. My point was that getting a first car that is a used electric car not requiring gas money on a weekly basis (which is something all or most of us had to do) is a nice benefit on top of the car itself.[/quote]I think it’s impossible to say what a first model year Tesla 3 will be worth 7 years down the road if not 5 years down the road. Toyota has a long track record of dependable cars. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to compare value of a first year model year car to one that has a proven track record. The very first Tesla model S’ have been on the road for just over 3 1/2 years now. Who knows how well they will function in 3 to 4 more years. What maintenance they might need what battery issues there will be. What electrical issues it might have etc. Certainly it would be fun to try out a Tesla model 3, but I don’t know that I’d be going all in on it. Maybe in 10 years nobody will want a car that doesn’t have a self driving capability.
Participant[quote=njtosd]Years ago I had a client that manufactured a popular food brand. It’s been around forever. One day I got a call about a labeling issue. They said that they were making a new product for Costco – wanted a different brand to use with that product. It made me realize that companies aren’t just repackaging the same thing they are selling in other stores and selling it at Costco. They are creating something that can be sold at Costco prices – perhaps not quite the same quality, etc. Obviously this is not true of everything – I’m sure Costco Coke and Von’s Coke are identical. It made me wonder, though.[/quote]
Some things sold at Costco are instead specific to Costco and could suffer some degradation. Electronics are probably the most prevalent items that fall in this category but manufactures do the same thing for Black Friday type deals as well. You might use an inferior panel or leave out chips that enable certain no core features. For some of us that might be a good thing. I’m not sure I want the voice activation chip in my tv anyways.
ParticipantWell how else is the government going to know you used the proper energy saving light bulbs and appliances. I seem to remember you advocating the government require people to upgrade inefficient devices with newer efficient ones.
It certainly sucks when that big intrusive government you wanted in place to make “Progress” gets in your way doesn’t it.
ParticipantLooks like the new Costco Visa by Citi is going to be quite good and better than the previous AMEX card.
4% cash back on gas
3% cash back on dinning and travel
2% cash back on Costco purchases
1% cash back on everything else.https://www.citi.com/credit-cards/creditcards/citi.action?ID=citi-costco-credit-card-conversion
-
AuthorPosts
