Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
LuckyInOC
Participant[quote=davelj]However, it’s a totally different situation if you (a) have a decent net worth and savings, (b) have good job stability and the mortgage isn’t overly taxing, (c) have strong community ties, and (d) moving under duress would be an issue for family and reputation issues. Most of these folks will gut it out. And there’s a lot of them.
[/quote]Dave, would you feel the same if a person as you describe above buys $500k a stock before a crash of 25%. He is upside down in his stock purchase. Should he ‘gut it out’ possibly lose more or would it make more financial sense to cut his loses and put his money to work in a better investment.
My guess would be persons like the one you described would be more likely to walk away because it would be a ‘Business Decision’ and everyone would respect his past success. The person you describe would careless of his credit score. He does not carry outstanding balances on his credit cards. He pays for his vehicles in full. He ‘could’ pay for everything in full including a home.
If I could get it past my wife (I have good understanding how Scaredy feels – bro in arms) and we were upside down with no financial recourse or taxes, I would walk. But because of my understanding of the some dynamics involved with the recent past housing market and much ‘LUCK’, I could now repurchase my home in full (20%less)if I walked away. Of course, I won’t because of my 50% LTV. I owe my 2nd hand knowledge to my younger brother purchased his second home in ’89 when the ‘industry’ was saying house prices ‘never’ drop. I was the only one he knew that said ‘not to buy’. He walked away from that home. He went out and rented a bigger/better home for less than his past mortgage and saved his money. Since then, he has purchased a home that has positive LTV. I learned from his mistakes.
I deeply agree with CA Realtor and AN about luck and being prepared when luck comes your way. I experienced it first hand. After my 2700sf home purchase ’05, we closed our previous 1400sf home (purchased 1yr after the ’89 bottom) 1 week before the mortgage crash for a $27k less than our ’05 purchase. The 80/20 purchase loans for the previous home were with 21st Century. Had I not pushed my agent to close on time, I would have been stuck with two mortgages in a death spiral market.
Lucky or Good, I choose both…
call it Good Luck…And I am very…
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=davelj]However, it’s a totally different situation if you (a) have a decent net worth and savings, (b) have good job stability and the mortgage isn’t overly taxing, (c) have strong community ties, and (d) moving under duress would be an issue for family and reputation issues. Most of these folks will gut it out. And there’s a lot of them.
[/quote]Dave, would you feel the same if a person as you describe above buys $500k a stock before a crash of 25%. He is upside down in his stock purchase. Should he ‘gut it out’ possibly lose more or would it make more financial sense to cut his loses and put his money to work in a better investment.
My guess would be persons like the one you described would be more likely to walk away because it would be a ‘Business Decision’ and everyone would respect his past success. The person you describe would careless of his credit score. He does not carry outstanding balances on his credit cards. He pays for his vehicles in full. He ‘could’ pay for everything in full including a home.
If I could get it past my wife (I have good understanding how Scaredy feels – bro in arms) and we were upside down with no financial recourse or taxes, I would walk. But because of my understanding of the some dynamics involved with the recent past housing market and much ‘LUCK’, I could now repurchase my home in full (20%less)if I walked away. Of course, I won’t because of my 50% LTV. I owe my 2nd hand knowledge to my younger brother purchased his second home in ’89 when the ‘industry’ was saying house prices ‘never’ drop. I was the only one he knew that said ‘not to buy’. He walked away from that home. He went out and rented a bigger/better home for less than his past mortgage and saved his money. Since then, he has purchased a home that has positive LTV. I learned from his mistakes.
I deeply agree with CA Realtor and AN about luck and being prepared when luck comes your way. I experienced it first hand. After my 2700sf home purchase ’05, we closed our previous 1400sf home (purchased 1yr after the ’89 bottom) 1 week before the mortgage crash for a $27k less than our ’05 purchase. The 80/20 purchase loans for the previous home were with 21st Century. Had I not pushed my agent to close on time, I would have been stuck with two mortgages in a death spiral market.
Lucky or Good, I choose both…
call it Good Luck…And I am very…
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=davelj]However, it’s a totally different situation if you (a) have a decent net worth and savings, (b) have good job stability and the mortgage isn’t overly taxing, (c) have strong community ties, and (d) moving under duress would be an issue for family and reputation issues. Most of these folks will gut it out. And there’s a lot of them.
[/quote]Dave, would you feel the same if a person as you describe above buys $500k a stock before a crash of 25%. He is upside down in his stock purchase. Should he ‘gut it out’ possibly lose more or would it make more financial sense to cut his loses and put his money to work in a better investment.
My guess would be persons like the one you described would be more likely to walk away because it would be a ‘Business Decision’ and everyone would respect his past success. The person you describe would careless of his credit score. He does not carry outstanding balances on his credit cards. He pays for his vehicles in full. He ‘could’ pay for everything in full including a home.
If I could get it past my wife (I have good understanding how Scaredy feels – bro in arms) and we were upside down with no financial recourse or taxes, I would walk. But because of my understanding of the some dynamics involved with the recent past housing market and much ‘LUCK’, I could now repurchase my home in full (20%less)if I walked away. Of course, I won’t because of my 50% LTV. I owe my 2nd hand knowledge to my younger brother purchased his second home in ’89 when the ‘industry’ was saying house prices ‘never’ drop. I was the only one he knew that said ‘not to buy’. He walked away from that home. He went out and rented a bigger/better home for less than his past mortgage and saved his money. Since then, he has purchased a home that has positive LTV. I learned from his mistakes.
I deeply agree with CA Realtor and AN about luck and being prepared when luck comes your way. I experienced it first hand. After my 2700sf home purchase ’05, we closed our previous 1400sf home (purchased 1yr after the ’89 bottom) 1 week before the mortgage crash for a $27k less than our ’05 purchase. The 80/20 purchase loans for the previous home were with 21st Century. Had I not pushed my agent to close on time, I would have been stuck with two mortgages in a death spiral market.
Lucky or Good, I choose both…
call it Good Luck…And I am very…
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=davelj]However, it’s a totally different situation if you (a) have a decent net worth and savings, (b) have good job stability and the mortgage isn’t overly taxing, (c) have strong community ties, and (d) moving under duress would be an issue for family and reputation issues. Most of these folks will gut it out. And there’s a lot of them.
[/quote]Dave, would you feel the same if a person as you describe above buys $500k a stock before a crash of 25%. He is upside down in his stock purchase. Should he ‘gut it out’ possibly lose more or would it make more financial sense to cut his loses and put his money to work in a better investment.
My guess would be persons like the one you described would be more likely to walk away because it would be a ‘Business Decision’ and everyone would respect his past success. The person you describe would careless of his credit score. He does not carry outstanding balances on his credit cards. He pays for his vehicles in full. He ‘could’ pay for everything in full including a home.
If I could get it past my wife (I have good understanding how Scaredy feels – bro in arms) and we were upside down with no financial recourse or taxes, I would walk. But because of my understanding of the some dynamics involved with the recent past housing market and much ‘LUCK’, I could now repurchase my home in full (20%less)if I walked away. Of course, I won’t because of my 50% LTV. I owe my 2nd hand knowledge to my younger brother purchased his second home in ’89 when the ‘industry’ was saying house prices ‘never’ drop. I was the only one he knew that said ‘not to buy’. He walked away from that home. He went out and rented a bigger/better home for less than his past mortgage and saved his money. Since then, he has purchased a home that has positive LTV. I learned from his mistakes.
I deeply agree with CA Realtor and AN about luck and being prepared when luck comes your way. I experienced it first hand. After my 2700sf home purchase ’05, we closed our previous 1400sf home (purchased 1yr after the ’89 bottom) 1 week before the mortgage crash for a $27k less than our ’05 purchase. The 80/20 purchase loans for the previous home were with 21st Century. Had I not pushed my agent to close on time, I would have been stuck with two mortgages in a death spiral market.
Lucky or Good, I choose both…
call it Good Luck…And I am very…
Lucky In OC
ParticipantAm I missing something?
Whether it is DBW or mechanical cable, if your accelerator gets stuck, what are you to do?
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Turn off the engine.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lightsYes, you do lose power steering. But at 90+ mph you can’t turn much anyway without crashing. If you can keep your car on the road at 90+ mph, you should be able to safely coast and steer to the side of the road.
or second option:
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Put the transmission into neutral.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lights.A blown engine would be much better than running into anything a 90+ mph.
All my mechanical cable vehicles can do both of these options. I would not buy any vehicle that could not do one or both of these. If the manufacturers have disabled the ability to turn off the engine while in drive mode or shift to neutral, then that is a design error.
Its a mater of making a quick decision to possibly damage the vehicle or possibly save your life. Regardless of what vehicle you drive, you have to make that decision before you get behind the wheel and drive.
My wife’s cousin was driving north I-15 late night several years ago with her mother and 4 siblings in an early model Sienna. At freeway speeds, she swerved to miss an object in the highway. The vehicle rolled numerous times and disintegrating around them. Two of the siblings, a boy in a carseat age 3 and a girl age 11 were ejected and died at the scene. The driver and her sister age 16 went to the hospital with multiple injuries for several weeks. Her mom was treated and released from the hospital. Her brother age 9 walked away with very minor injuries. Had she struck the object in the road, she would have damage the vehicle with little or no risk to the her or her passengers. But it takes a split second decision.
You are far more liking to get killed in a car, than by a gun. Cars are the biggest accidental killer of people, not guns. Ban cars, not guns.
Lucky In OC
ParticipantAm I missing something?
Whether it is DBW or mechanical cable, if your accelerator gets stuck, what are you to do?
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Turn off the engine.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lightsYes, you do lose power steering. But at 90+ mph you can’t turn much anyway without crashing. If you can keep your car on the road at 90+ mph, you should be able to safely coast and steer to the side of the road.
or second option:
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Put the transmission into neutral.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lights.A blown engine would be much better than running into anything a 90+ mph.
All my mechanical cable vehicles can do both of these options. I would not buy any vehicle that could not do one or both of these. If the manufacturers have disabled the ability to turn off the engine while in drive mode or shift to neutral, then that is a design error.
Its a mater of making a quick decision to possibly damage the vehicle or possibly save your life. Regardless of what vehicle you drive, you have to make that decision before you get behind the wheel and drive.
My wife’s cousin was driving north I-15 late night several years ago with her mother and 4 siblings in an early model Sienna. At freeway speeds, she swerved to miss an object in the highway. The vehicle rolled numerous times and disintegrating around them. Two of the siblings, a boy in a carseat age 3 and a girl age 11 were ejected and died at the scene. The driver and her sister age 16 went to the hospital with multiple injuries for several weeks. Her mom was treated and released from the hospital. Her brother age 9 walked away with very minor injuries. Had she struck the object in the road, she would have damage the vehicle with little or no risk to the her or her passengers. But it takes a split second decision.
You are far more liking to get killed in a car, than by a gun. Cars are the biggest accidental killer of people, not guns. Ban cars, not guns.
Lucky In OC
ParticipantAm I missing something?
Whether it is DBW or mechanical cable, if your accelerator gets stuck, what are you to do?
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Turn off the engine.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lightsYes, you do lose power steering. But at 90+ mph you can’t turn much anyway without crashing. If you can keep your car on the road at 90+ mph, you should be able to safely coast and steer to the side of the road.
or second option:
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Put the transmission into neutral.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lights.A blown engine would be much better than running into anything a 90+ mph.
All my mechanical cable vehicles can do both of these options. I would not buy any vehicle that could not do one or both of these. If the manufacturers have disabled the ability to turn off the engine while in drive mode or shift to neutral, then that is a design error.
Its a mater of making a quick decision to possibly damage the vehicle or possibly save your life. Regardless of what vehicle you drive, you have to make that decision before you get behind the wheel and drive.
My wife’s cousin was driving north I-15 late night several years ago with her mother and 4 siblings in an early model Sienna. At freeway speeds, she swerved to miss an object in the highway. The vehicle rolled numerous times and disintegrating around them. Two of the siblings, a boy in a carseat age 3 and a girl age 11 were ejected and died at the scene. The driver and her sister age 16 went to the hospital with multiple injuries for several weeks. Her mom was treated and released from the hospital. Her brother age 9 walked away with very minor injuries. Had she struck the object in the road, she would have damage the vehicle with little or no risk to the her or her passengers. But it takes a split second decision.
You are far more liking to get killed in a car, than by a gun. Cars are the biggest accidental killer of people, not guns. Ban cars, not guns.
Lucky In OC
ParticipantAm I missing something?
Whether it is DBW or mechanical cable, if your accelerator gets stuck, what are you to do?
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Turn off the engine.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lightsYes, you do lose power steering. But at 90+ mph you can’t turn much anyway without crashing. If you can keep your car on the road at 90+ mph, you should be able to safely coast and steer to the side of the road.
or second option:
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Put the transmission into neutral.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lights.A blown engine would be much better than running into anything a 90+ mph.
All my mechanical cable vehicles can do both of these options. I would not buy any vehicle that could not do one or both of these. If the manufacturers have disabled the ability to turn off the engine while in drive mode or shift to neutral, then that is a design error.
Its a mater of making a quick decision to possibly damage the vehicle or possibly save your life. Regardless of what vehicle you drive, you have to make that decision before you get behind the wheel and drive.
My wife’s cousin was driving north I-15 late night several years ago with her mother and 4 siblings in an early model Sienna. At freeway speeds, she swerved to miss an object in the highway. The vehicle rolled numerous times and disintegrating around them. Two of the siblings, a boy in a carseat age 3 and a girl age 11 were ejected and died at the scene. The driver and her sister age 16 went to the hospital with multiple injuries for several weeks. Her mom was treated and released from the hospital. Her brother age 9 walked away with very minor injuries. Had she struck the object in the road, she would have damage the vehicle with little or no risk to the her or her passengers. But it takes a split second decision.
You are far more liking to get killed in a car, than by a gun. Cars are the biggest accidental killer of people, not guns. Ban cars, not guns.
Lucky In OC
ParticipantAm I missing something?
Whether it is DBW or mechanical cable, if your accelerator gets stuck, what are you to do?
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Turn off the engine.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lightsYes, you do lose power steering. But at 90+ mph you can’t turn much anyway without crashing. If you can keep your car on the road at 90+ mph, you should be able to safely coast and steer to the side of the road.
or second option:
#1 – Hit the pedal several times.
#2 – Put the transmission into neutral.
#3 – Turn on Hazard lights.A blown engine would be much better than running into anything a 90+ mph.
All my mechanical cable vehicles can do both of these options. I would not buy any vehicle that could not do one or both of these. If the manufacturers have disabled the ability to turn off the engine while in drive mode or shift to neutral, then that is a design error.
Its a mater of making a quick decision to possibly damage the vehicle or possibly save your life. Regardless of what vehicle you drive, you have to make that decision before you get behind the wheel and drive.
My wife’s cousin was driving north I-15 late night several years ago with her mother and 4 siblings in an early model Sienna. At freeway speeds, she swerved to miss an object in the highway. The vehicle rolled numerous times and disintegrating around them. Two of the siblings, a boy in a carseat age 3 and a girl age 11 were ejected and died at the scene. The driver and her sister age 16 went to the hospital with multiple injuries for several weeks. Her mom was treated and released from the hospital. Her brother age 9 walked away with very minor injuries. Had she struck the object in the road, she would have damage the vehicle with little or no risk to the her or her passengers. But it takes a split second decision.
You are far more liking to get killed in a car, than by a gun. Cars are the biggest accidental killer of people, not guns. Ban cars, not guns.
Lucky In OC
ParticipantHere’s a thought…
Pick a TBTF bank:
#1 – Put $10K into a CD in that bank.
#2 – Buy $10K of Stock.After a year, which would yield more?
I know the risks are different.
It’s a question of choice…
Invest it or Save it.If you are complaining the banks are making too much money, then may be you should be investing in the stock and reaping some of your gov’t money back.
It might help to pay those additional taxes.
A premium window contractor wanted me to sell me replacement windows that would have cost $30k to save me money on my utility bills. My utility bills were less than $200 per month (we don’t need to use our heaters or AC much). Even if my utility bills went to $0, it still would be a 12.5 year payback. If I save 50% on my bill, my payback would be 25 years. Of course as utility costs would rise, payback would be faster. The question would be how much.
On most utility bills, half of the cost is distribution costs. Regardless of how much energy we use, these cost must offset the fixed costs of the utility. As our energy use is reduced collectively, percentage of these fixed costs must rise on the bill. These cost will always rise regardless of the energy used. This will offset any perceived savings. The ones who will benefit the most will be the ones who incur the savings first, kind of like a pyramid scheme.
On utility cost alone, I would probably never live to see the $30k windows payback and I’m 49yo. I could not justify the cost of $30k in windows.
Result: Purchased same efficiency window with low-cost contractor for $10k. I needed new windows for other reasons than energy usage (comfort, noise, leakage, dust, etc.). Invested the other $20k. And I will still not see any payback on the $10k.
The morale of the story: it was more ‘cost effective’ to invest $30K in the utility companies than to change out my windows. It is very unlikely they will go BK. They get equitable cost adjustments every year. The yearly ROI would pay my utilities – win-win. Investment rule #1: Invest in what you use – pay yourself back.
LuckyInOC
ParticipantHere’s a thought…
Pick a TBTF bank:
#1 – Put $10K into a CD in that bank.
#2 – Buy $10K of Stock.After a year, which would yield more?
I know the risks are different.
It’s a question of choice…
Invest it or Save it.If you are complaining the banks are making too much money, then may be you should be investing in the stock and reaping some of your gov’t money back.
It might help to pay those additional taxes.
A premium window contractor wanted me to sell me replacement windows that would have cost $30k to save me money on my utility bills. My utility bills were less than $200 per month (we don’t need to use our heaters or AC much). Even if my utility bills went to $0, it still would be a 12.5 year payback. If I save 50% on my bill, my payback would be 25 years. Of course as utility costs would rise, payback would be faster. The question would be how much.
On most utility bills, half of the cost is distribution costs. Regardless of how much energy we use, these cost must offset the fixed costs of the utility. As our energy use is reduced collectively, percentage of these fixed costs must rise on the bill. These cost will always rise regardless of the energy used. This will offset any perceived savings. The ones who will benefit the most will be the ones who incur the savings first, kind of like a pyramid scheme.
On utility cost alone, I would probably never live to see the $30k windows payback and I’m 49yo. I could not justify the cost of $30k in windows.
Result: Purchased same efficiency window with low-cost contractor for $10k. I needed new windows for other reasons than energy usage (comfort, noise, leakage, dust, etc.). Invested the other $20k. And I will still not see any payback on the $10k.
The morale of the story: it was more ‘cost effective’ to invest $30K in the utility companies than to change out my windows. It is very unlikely they will go BK. They get equitable cost adjustments every year. The yearly ROI would pay my utilities – win-win. Investment rule #1: Invest in what you use – pay yourself back.
LuckyInOC
ParticipantHere’s a thought…
Pick a TBTF bank:
#1 – Put $10K into a CD in that bank.
#2 – Buy $10K of Stock.After a year, which would yield more?
I know the risks are different.
It’s a question of choice…
Invest it or Save it.If you are complaining the banks are making too much money, then may be you should be investing in the stock and reaping some of your gov’t money back.
It might help to pay those additional taxes.
A premium window contractor wanted me to sell me replacement windows that would have cost $30k to save me money on my utility bills. My utility bills were less than $200 per month (we don’t need to use our heaters or AC much). Even if my utility bills went to $0, it still would be a 12.5 year payback. If I save 50% on my bill, my payback would be 25 years. Of course as utility costs would rise, payback would be faster. The question would be how much.
On most utility bills, half of the cost is distribution costs. Regardless of how much energy we use, these cost must offset the fixed costs of the utility. As our energy use is reduced collectively, percentage of these fixed costs must rise on the bill. These cost will always rise regardless of the energy used. This will offset any perceived savings. The ones who will benefit the most will be the ones who incur the savings first, kind of like a pyramid scheme.
On utility cost alone, I would probably never live to see the $30k windows payback and I’m 49yo. I could not justify the cost of $30k in windows.
Result: Purchased same efficiency window with low-cost contractor for $10k. I needed new windows for other reasons than energy usage (comfort, noise, leakage, dust, etc.). Invested the other $20k. And I will still not see any payback on the $10k.
The morale of the story: it was more ‘cost effective’ to invest $30K in the utility companies than to change out my windows. It is very unlikely they will go BK. They get equitable cost adjustments every year. The yearly ROI would pay my utilities – win-win. Investment rule #1: Invest in what you use – pay yourself back.
LuckyInOC
ParticipantHere’s a thought…
Pick a TBTF bank:
#1 – Put $10K into a CD in that bank.
#2 – Buy $10K of Stock.After a year, which would yield more?
I know the risks are different.
It’s a question of choice…
Invest it or Save it.If you are complaining the banks are making too much money, then may be you should be investing in the stock and reaping some of your gov’t money back.
It might help to pay those additional taxes.
A premium window contractor wanted me to sell me replacement windows that would have cost $30k to save me money on my utility bills. My utility bills were less than $200 per month (we don’t need to use our heaters or AC much). Even if my utility bills went to $0, it still would be a 12.5 year payback. If I save 50% on my bill, my payback would be 25 years. Of course as utility costs would rise, payback would be faster. The question would be how much.
On most utility bills, half of the cost is distribution costs. Regardless of how much energy we use, these cost must offset the fixed costs of the utility. As our energy use is reduced collectively, percentage of these fixed costs must rise on the bill. These cost will always rise regardless of the energy used. This will offset any perceived savings. The ones who will benefit the most will be the ones who incur the savings first, kind of like a pyramid scheme.
On utility cost alone, I would probably never live to see the $30k windows payback and I’m 49yo. I could not justify the cost of $30k in windows.
Result: Purchased same efficiency window with low-cost contractor for $10k. I needed new windows for other reasons than energy usage (comfort, noise, leakage, dust, etc.). Invested the other $20k. And I will still not see any payback on the $10k.
The morale of the story: it was more ‘cost effective’ to invest $30K in the utility companies than to change out my windows. It is very unlikely they will go BK. They get equitable cost adjustments every year. The yearly ROI would pay my utilities – win-win. Investment rule #1: Invest in what you use – pay yourself back.
LuckyInOC
ParticipantHere’s a thought…
Pick a TBTF bank:
#1 – Put $10K into a CD in that bank.
#2 – Buy $10K of Stock.After a year, which would yield more?
I know the risks are different.
It’s a question of choice…
Invest it or Save it.If you are complaining the banks are making too much money, then may be you should be investing in the stock and reaping some of your gov’t money back.
It might help to pay those additional taxes.
A premium window contractor wanted me to sell me replacement windows that would have cost $30k to save me money on my utility bills. My utility bills were less than $200 per month (we don’t need to use our heaters or AC much). Even if my utility bills went to $0, it still would be a 12.5 year payback. If I save 50% on my bill, my payback would be 25 years. Of course as utility costs would rise, payback would be faster. The question would be how much.
On most utility bills, half of the cost is distribution costs. Regardless of how much energy we use, these cost must offset the fixed costs of the utility. As our energy use is reduced collectively, percentage of these fixed costs must rise on the bill. These cost will always rise regardless of the energy used. This will offset any perceived savings. The ones who will benefit the most will be the ones who incur the savings first, kind of like a pyramid scheme.
On utility cost alone, I would probably never live to see the $30k windows payback and I’m 49yo. I could not justify the cost of $30k in windows.
Result: Purchased same efficiency window with low-cost contractor for $10k. I needed new windows for other reasons than energy usage (comfort, noise, leakage, dust, etc.). Invested the other $20k. And I will still not see any payback on the $10k.
The morale of the story: it was more ‘cost effective’ to invest $30K in the utility companies than to change out my windows. It is very unlikely they will go BK. They get equitable cost adjustments every year. The yearly ROI would pay my utilities – win-win. Investment rule #1: Invest in what you use – pay yourself back.
LuckyInOC
-
AuthorPosts
