Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #762898
SD Realtor
ParticipantIt doesn’t really matter to me.
It is clear you are simply being argumentative.
All bond contracts are very clear as to what is and what is not callable and it is up to the purchaser of the bond to make the decision.
The state borrowing money to build infrastructure is of a higher importance and benefits society a hell of alot more then the state backing failed pension funds. When the state f-cks up, the fix to the f-ck up should not be a meat cleaver but a well thought out solution so you don’t permanently damage the probablity of future investment.
Again, making me spell out this out is just a game you are playing because you already know all this but you just want to play this game.
Morally, there is a distinction between the state borrowing money to provide infrastructure to everybody, as opposed to the state obligating itself to pay for a poorly managed fund that only benefits a small fraction of the overall state population. Using taxpayer money to pay interest on loans that are used to build projects that are for the use and benefit of the entire community makes a hell of alot more sense then using taxpayer money to pay for a bungled up fund that benefits a fraction of the community when compared to the overall state population.
Hiding behind poorly written pension contracts or antiquated requirements seems to be your path chosen here rather then going, okay that was a major f-ck up, let’s try to make things right.
June 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #762894ParticipantI guess I see the promise of any given return as orthogonal. If the anticipated return is 1% or if it is 3% it is what it is.
Backstopping the obligations IMO is orthogonal to it.
To me, having taxpayer funds as a backstop creates a moral hazard such that mismanagement or poor performance simply results in someone shrugging their shoulders and going…. well don’t worry about it, taxpayers got your back.
ParticipantNow I would definitely agree with you on that point Shoveler.
When the govt does decide to take away assets, it is much easier for them to simply lock up the banks, trading firms, etc.
However once they do that, I presume taking property is not far behind.
June 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #762887ParticipantUmmm aren’t bonds callable? I have seen plenty of muni’s that have early call provisions.
June 17, 2013 at 1:05 PM in reply to: Another excellent Economist Mag article on the terrible state pension issues #762882ParticipantI don’t see the solution to the pension problem in raising more revenue to pay the pensions. If the pensions are not making the projected returns, then tough break. Then the returns are not made and the those getting pension checks simply get less. If they do make the returns, then good for them.
Pensions are fine, just don’t use public funds to backstop poor performance.
If you want to change tax laws on prop 13 why not let everyone benefit from increased revenue?
ParticipantAgreed with you DR. I think it is foolish to park hard cash in RE right now.
I would definitely take advantage of a mortgage for many reasons. Inflation protection as well as leverage. If you anticipate much higher interest rates in the future, why not keep cash available to purchase high yield bonds that will be available when rates go up, rather then have that cash tied up in a home. Imagine having a mortgage, or several mortgages if you are an investor at say 3 or 3.5%, and you then having several hundreds of thousands of dollars available to lock into double digit yielding bonds. (check out bond yields in the early 80s).
You would do very well. Seems like a better way to go rather then putting all your cash into a home. I guess it just depends on your outlook.
ParticipantMy thoughts are that you should not get rattled. Even by your own research, you found that around 70% of the people in CV have mortgages. That means when you make your inquiries or write your offers, that you should see that same proportion, 3 out of 10 have cash buyers yet you are implying that this is not the case.
My rule of thumb to clients is don’t get rattled by what you are told. You cannot control the external environment. Set your strategy and pursue the home in a manner determined by how aggressive you want to be, not by what you may get told based on simple inquiries. While the market is still hot, it is not quite as hot as it was in March. There have been more homes coming on the market and of course, pricing has jumped but we are approaching the price equilibrium that happens after a major leg up.
If I looked at the past 30 closings in CV for detached homes I would be willing to bet that no more then 20% are cash. I could be wrong, but would be very surprised. The profile of the cash buyer is a trivial detail, I guess people are curious so that is why they bring it up?
Your sense about properties coming back to the market does match what I have seen. Many homes are not appraising because the leg up was so steep that there are not enough comps to justify the rates. Originating lender guidelines are forcing appraisers to find hard comps and if that cannot be done the appraisal will not come in. Some buyers will pay the difference and some will not. Stay the path and you will do okay.
ParticipantChill out Allan… roll a couple fatties and then go operate a crane…
ParticipantWell I tried that Allan and it didn’t work. She still took a sledghammer to my laptop.
**********************************************
I am torn by all this stuff. First off, it is not partisan at all. Let me get that out of the way. This has been going on a long time. Second off, there have been an astounding number of terror plots that have been planned and thwarted. Like it or not, I believe that in at least some of those thwarted plots, these measures helped to capture the guilty party.
I have nothing to hide and while I don’t like it… I do believe there are people in this world that want to see my country destroyed and are actively planning to kill citizens so if this helps stop them… so be it…
Now, having the IRS audit me because I am a raving conservative…or publish my name because I am a donor to conservative causes…
I have a big problem with that.
ParticipantThe other thing is that sub markets matter. In some of the more desired sub markets I have seen pricing making it almost all the way back, nor did I see it drop as far as the chart indicates either.
ParticipantSure Christian immigrants are doing great in other worlds especially in places like Egypt. They are having the time of their life.
ParticipantGood point nsr. I also am pretty sure that a study was done about the manufacturing process for ethanol and I believe the findings were that it was much more environmentally damaging as a whole when the sum of the entire process is considered.
Even environmental groups clammoring for it 10 years ago have reversed course.Sorry for the hijack….
ParticipantI think that there is a difference between the millions and millions of disenfranchised and what these guys were. These guys and guys who put bombs in shoes, or fly planes into buildings or plant bombs at marathons are not disenfranchised. They have been programmed by others to hate and to kill all in the name of religion.
That is way the hell different then those who want to riot against G8.
ParticipantGreat answer from them. Yeah hiding from terrorism always makes it go away.
-
AuthorPosts
