Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employees Bankrupt yet another California City: Stockton #760964
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Jazzman]I thought you still have to file returns in the US on world-wide income, even if no longer resident. It’s probably more aimed at businesses.[/quote]
Generally true. PR is a US protectorate, the rules are a bit different.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]I’m not saying that the bank didn’t take risk, because they did, and I did as well. What I’m saying is they have no risk now. Well if things keep going as they are I guess it will only be 2 more months to get from 80% to 75%, I guess I could have wasted that $250 on something else equally stupid like buying chairs and painting them with a new $50 wagner paint sprayer, little tip (Behr paint goes on sale next week @ Home Depot, $5 off per gallon).[/quote]
Of course they have risk. You could lose your job tomorrow and stop making payments. If they have to foreclose on your loan they WILL lose money, even if they collect every penny of interest and principle. Interest rates could suddenly rise and the value of that loan they’re holding could go down (and because US Bank is a warehouse lender, more likely than not they’re not just servicing your loan, they DO still own your loan too). Inventories could rise and prices level out or even fall, reducing your equity and their protection. So as long as you still owe them money, they still have risk.
There’s always talk here of landlords being picky about their tenants. Should a landlord, with a tenant that has a good history of paying, refund their tenants deposit because of that good history? I doubt a single person on this board would suggest that a landlord ever release that kind of security. But you’re suggesting that the lender that agreed to loan you money, based in part on you paying for PMI as additional security, release that similar security. Given the volatility in home prices over the last 6 years, they’d be downright foolish to do so, absent a requirement in the loan document.
That said, US Bank is a warehouse lender. As such, they have greater flexibility in how they apply policy, and they are not written in stone. They’ll likely require you to pay for an appraisal, but if you think you have sufficient equity, formally request that they cancel the PMI. It was a different era, but I have had warehouse lenders make exceptions to their standard policies.
ParticipantIts a little unclear to me what the big shelter is. The top tax rate there is slightly lower than the US. Cap gains exclusion for assets held when you arrive and not sold for 10 years after you get there. So you have to live in PR for 10 years to get the big benefit.
March 28, 2013 at 10:36 PM in reply to: $64,000 Question. What raises property values in HOA neighborhood? #760901Participant[quote=spdrun]njtosd — you’re from NJ, right? Funny how probably 95% of detached homes in NJ aren’t HOA-encumbered, and people survive and thrive just fine in that fair state.[/quote]
It’s both a regional and age thing. Almost all newer (last 20 years) developments in AZ, NV, FL and a handful of other states have HOAs, even if dues are very low (in the few hundreds or less per YEAR in some cases). California they’ve become common but not every single development. Other states even more rare.
ParticipantMen would be so much better than women at this.
Just sayin.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]
You’re entitled to a fair cross section of the community where the court convenes – not peers. For example – my peers might be lower middle class white women. Do you really think thats the jury i would get? I dont believe there is any Supreme Court case where there is a holding (not dictum) where it was found that you’re entitled to a jury of your peers. The lack of PC -ness of the phrase is kind of a give away.[/quote]Yes, I’d call it dictum. And a pretty narrow definition of “peers”. Specifically, race cannot be a proper cause for exclusion from jury pools. Sex can. Education can. Age can. See Strauder v. West Virginia:
The very idea of a jury is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine — that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.
[/quote]
Ok – you realize that case is from the1800s, right? And I won’t bother addressing your other points which I assume are supposed to be humor -[/quote]
I do realize that. Do SCOTUS decisions have an expiration date?
And no humor intended. I was just adding some details.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
You’re entitled to a fair cross section of the community where the court convenes – not peers. For example – my peers might be lower middle class white women. Do you really think thats the jury i would get? I dont believe there is any Supreme Court case where there is a holding (not dictum) where it was found that you’re entitled to a jury of your peers. The lack of PC -ness of the phrase is kind of a give away.[/quote]Yes, I’d call it dictum. And a pretty narrow definition of “peers”. Specifically, race cannot be a proper cause for exclusion from jury pools. Sex can. Education can. Age can. See Strauder v. West Virginia:
The very idea of a jury is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine — that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl]
This case illustrates a typical “jury of your peers” in the County of Los Angeles, IMHO…. brought to you by the Clara Shortridge Foltz “Hall of Results.”
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/judicialofficers/ui/index.aspx%5B/quote%5D
A “jury of your peers” is what was required under the Magna Carta – all you get is a jury under the US Constitution.[/quote]
Only partially right. The constitution doesn’t mention “jury of your peers” specifically. But the SCOTUS has. And since the SCOTUS is the final word (at least until they change their minds) on what the constitution does and doesn’t say, “jury of your peers” is now the law of the land.
March 21, 2013 at 12:05 PM in reply to: OT: No Surprise. . .A Retirement Crisis is Coming to a Country Near You. . . #760800Participant[quote=bearishgurl]It’s funny you should bring this up. I’m in touch periodically with former coworkers who are still working for local gubment. As supervisors and mgrs, they interview a lot of Gen Y who come to the interview with visible tatoos and piercings and their phones texting them constantly. Since many entry-level gubment positions’ duties are primarily assisting the public, the gubment has strict dress and appearance codes for these employees who serve all generations of the public. The Gen Y group seems to think its okay to come to work in jeans with bullet holes and a skin-tight tank top or micro miniskirt and I am hearing that even after hire and being given a strict dress code that they have to sign, some of these workers still have to be sent home periodically to re-dress and remove their facial earring(s). Of course, having to send an employee home to come back later is disruptive to the work schedule of the department or section they work in.
To me, this is a downright lack of respect on the part of these young workers who should be ecstatic to have a steady job in this economy. Employers seem to be giving them a lot more rope than they did previous generations (especially on probation) because they apparently don’t have too much else to pick from for these jobs :=0
I’ve also heard that Gen Y balks at getting written performance evaluations but that is how the gubment covers its a$$, since it can only discipline or terminate an employee for cause (after probation is served).
By the time all the boomers have left the workplace, perhaps (the younger) Gen Y will have matured enough to understand the “lay of the land” and follow it, unpoliced.[/quote]
Those damn kids. With their loud music. The boys with their long hair. The girls not wearing bras. Get off my f’ing lawn!
Participant[quote=dumbrenter]
I do not get what you mean by double counting debt.
Say I, as a homeowner take on mortgage to buy a home. I am in debt to the bank and it shows up on the asset side of the bank. If the bank sells my debt off to financial companies or GSEs, then I am still the debtor while the financial companies become the creditors. What I owe them will be listed on the asset side of their balance sheet.
Not a financial expert, but am I missing something in this example?[/quote]Yes, you are missing something. And so was I. The bank or whatever lender you used sold the debt to either one of the GSE, or in the private mortgage market. They, in turn, collateralized it, creating new debt. So both you and the buyer of your loan both owe the same money. Forty years ago, the bank loaned you the money and most often kept the loan. After thinking it through, its not that different. The bank mostly used depositors money, not equity, to make the loan. It’s slightly different, the bank did have some equity in the loan. But nowhere near 100%, so it partly resulted in doubling the amount of debt then too.
March 20, 2013 at 1:07 PM in reply to: OT: No Surprise. . .A Retirement Crisis is Coming to a Country Near You. . . #760759ParticipantAgree with all of this BG, except this part:
It’s hard to bring up a kid these days with your “frugal” values when “reality TV” and their “peers” are everywhere.
I don’t think I worked any harder than any other parent. My daughter just called me, and her exciting news was that she got two shirts before a bachelorette party in Vegas, and they only cost $9. Total. My son shops at 2nd hand stores.
I still wear my 501’s regularly. Though I like the fit of the 5-0-something else better. And flip-flops. Sad they don’t cost $1.05 anymore. Don’t seem to last as long either. My 15 year old car is slightly older than the one I drove in high school.
Participant[quote=spdrun]I was thinking more like 10% in the real world. I guess water really is the 1000-lb gorilla in the room, at least as far as Phoenix goes.
If there’s no HOA, would I actually give a aerial wank how the tenant kept the lawn?[/quote]
You never know. I’m the last person to ever tell you that it matters what the house looks like, except to the extent that it affects value. You could get lucky and get a tenant that likes and cares about the yard. Or you could get one that doesn’t give an aerial yank either (I love that, btw). That tenant is likely to stay a shorter time too. And when you have to release it, what it looks like DOES matter. So you either have a harder time re-renting it, rent for less money, or pay through the nose for instant landscaping.
I just did a little math. I’ve collected over 30,000 months of rent in the last 20 years. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, the unexpected WILL happen.
Participant[quote=spdrun]There were houses in Deer Valley selling for $80k that would be usable with $20k of renovations. They’d rent for $1300/mo, minus $200 for taxes, minus $100 for insurance, tenant pays utilities. That’s 12% pro forma cap.[/quote]
Go for it. Only an extraordinarily naïve investor would think they might get 12%. Water bill is hard to get into a tenants name, most public utilities will only bill the legal owner. You want to trust the tenant to pay, go ahead. Gardner? You want to trust the tenant to mow the lawn and take care of the landscaping, go ahead. Dreamers think they’re going to get 100% occupancy. Almost never happens, specially in the year of purchase. I rented a house in SD from 2006 to 2011. I was the exception. Shit happens. Sometimes there will be a year with no repairs or unexpected costs in a rental house. Not often. If you’re lucky, they’re small.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]SK you need to be more specific when you said the area. Also this post is for owner occupancy.[/quote]
I-15 corridor. Scripps, PQ, RB, CMR, Poway. I know there’s always been more rentals avail in MM, particularly in the east, but more now I suspect?
-
AuthorPosts
