[ucodegen]

@CMcG

I think she is paying a premium for the “on-call” stuff.

Kind of weird that the husband is the guy who may leave without a notice, yet the wife wants an ‘on-call’ sitter? Sounds like the wife is stepping out on the husband, and wants to be able to get a sitter quickly if the husband is out and the wife finds out that her paramour is available.

[ucodegen]

@CMcG

I think she is paying a premium for the “on-call” stuff.

Kind of weird that the husband is the guy who may leave without a notice, yet the wife wants an ‘on-call’ sitter? Sounds like the wife is stepping out on the husband, and wants to be able to get a sitter quickly if the husband is out and the wife finds out that her paramour is available.

[ucodegen]

@CMcG

I think she is paying a premium for the “on-call” stuff.

Kind of weird that the husband is the guy who may leave without a notice, yet the wife wants an ‘on-call’ sitter? Sounds like the wife is stepping out on the husband, and wants to be able to get a sitter quickly if the husband is out and the wife finds out that her paramour is available.

[ucodegen]

@DrChaos

Google flipped the bird at the conventional wisdom, and unlike Yahoo and post 1999 Microsoft, didn’t put “adult supervision” and “business people” in charge.

PhD nerds run it, and PhD nerddom is the rule.

Looks like nerds are better at business than businessmen are at nerding.

ROTFLMAO 😎
I needed that. I have had more problems than I can talk about, trying to explain the products that the company I work for makes, to the “adult supervision”. When I see the the “adult supervision” getting into arguments about parking space, corner office, view, size of office, etc.. I ask myself.. what “adult supervision”? Would Ballmer be considered “adult supervision”?

My take on the acquisition: Microsoft is trying to take out competition. Both Yahoo and Microsoft(through MSN.com) offer much of the same: finance, search, mail.. etc. There is no synergy in this merger because the acquisition does not add any functionality to msn.com that doesn’t already exist at msn.com. The corporate cultures are much different between msn.com and yahoo.com. I also think this will happen much the same way the ‘hotmail.com’ scenario went down.. with Microsofting of the product driving people away(and the related questions of why it doesn’t run on a Microsoft platform, the problems and costs in getting it onto a Microsoft platform). I anticipate Microsoft having to write down a large portion of the purchase to a loss.

It is also important to remember that with advertising (where both msn.com and yahoo.com), combining them into one will not increase total revenue because advertisers are presently buying space on both msn.com and yahoo.com to ensure coverage. If they combine, one only has to buy from one.

What should really happen: Microsoft to return excess cash to investors as a dividend. Spend money on improving MSN portal. Realize that eye-candy does not make a good portal.

This is not likely to happen, and Yahoo will probably sell out. This is one that anti-trust laws might apply because it reduces existing competition and there is no synergy in the merger… but then we also know that those people are currently asleep at the wheel.

[ucodegen]

@DrChaos

Google flipped the bird at the conventional wisdom, and unlike Yahoo and post 1999 Microsoft, didn’t put “adult supervision” and “business people” in charge.

PhD nerds run it, and PhD nerddom is the rule.

Looks like nerds are better at business than businessmen are at nerding.

ROTFLMAO 😎
I needed that. I have had more problems than I can talk about, trying to explain the products that the company I work for makes, to the “adult supervision”. When I see the the “adult supervision” getting into arguments about parking space, corner office, view, size of office, etc.. I ask myself.. what “adult supervision”? Would Ballmer be considered “adult supervision”?

My take on the acquisition: Microsoft is trying to take out competition. Both Yahoo and Microsoft(through MSN.com) offer much of the same: finance, search, mail.. etc. There is no synergy in this merger because the acquisition does not add any functionality to msn.com that doesn’t already exist at msn.com. The corporate cultures are much different between msn.com and yahoo.com. I also think this will happen much the same way the ‘hotmail.com’ scenario went down.. with Microsofting of the product driving people away(and the related questions of why it doesn’t run on a Microsoft platform, the problems and costs in getting it onto a Microsoft platform). I anticipate Microsoft having to write down a large portion of the purchase to a loss.

It is also important to remember that with advertising (where both msn.com and yahoo.com), combining them into one will not increase total revenue because advertisers are presently buying space on both msn.com and yahoo.com to ensure coverage. If they combine, one only has to buy from one.

What should really happen: Microsoft to return excess cash to investors as a dividend. Spend money on improving MSN portal. Realize that eye-candy does not make a good portal.

This is not likely to happen, and Yahoo will probably sell out. This is one that anti-trust laws might apply because it reduces existing competition and there is no synergy in the merger… but then we also know that those people are currently asleep at the wheel.

[ucodegen]

@DrChaos

Google flipped the bird at the conventional wisdom, and unlike Yahoo and post 1999 Microsoft, didn’t put “adult supervision” and “business people” in charge.

PhD nerds run it, and PhD nerddom is the rule.

Looks like nerds are better at business than businessmen are at nerding.

ROTFLMAO 😎
I needed that. I have had more problems than I can talk about, trying to explain the products that the company I work for makes, to the “adult supervision”. When I see the the “adult supervision” getting into arguments about parking space, corner office, view, size of office, etc.. I ask myself.. what “adult supervision”? Would Ballmer be considered “adult supervision”?

My take on the acquisition: Microsoft is trying to take out competition. Both Yahoo and Microsoft(through MSN.com) offer much of the same: finance, search, mail.. etc. There is no synergy in this merger because the acquisition does not add any functionality to msn.com that doesn’t already exist at msn.com. The corporate cultures are much different between msn.com and yahoo.com. I also think this will happen much the same way the ‘hotmail.com’ scenario went down.. with Microsofting of the product driving people away(and the related questions of why it doesn’t run on a Microsoft platform, the problems and costs in getting it onto a Microsoft platform). I anticipate Microsoft having to write down a large portion of the purchase to a loss.

It is also important to remember that with advertising (where both msn.com and yahoo.com), combining them into one will not increase total revenue because advertisers are presently buying space on both msn.com and yahoo.com to ensure coverage. If they combine, one only has to buy from one.

What should really happen: Microsoft to return excess cash to investors as a dividend. Spend money on improving MSN portal. Realize that eye-candy does not make a good portal.

This is not likely to happen, and Yahoo will probably sell out. This is one that anti-trust laws might apply because it reduces existing competition and there is no synergy in the merger… but then we also know that those people are currently asleep at the wheel.

[ucodegen]

@DrChaos

Google flipped the bird at the conventional wisdom, and unlike Yahoo and post 1999 Microsoft, didn’t put “adult supervision” and “business people” in charge.

PhD nerds run it, and PhD nerddom is the rule.

Looks like nerds are better at business than businessmen are at nerding.

ROTFLMAO 😎
I needed that. I have had more problems than I can talk about, trying to explain the products that the company I work for makes, to the “adult supervision”. When I see the the “adult supervision” getting into arguments about parking space, corner office, view, size of office, etc.. I ask myself.. what “adult supervision”? Would Ballmer be considered “adult supervision”?

My take on the acquisition: Microsoft is trying to take out competition. Both Yahoo and Microsoft(through MSN.com) offer much of the same: finance, search, mail.. etc. There is no synergy in this merger because the acquisition does not add any functionality to msn.com that doesn’t already exist at msn.com. The corporate cultures are much different between msn.com and yahoo.com. I also think this will happen much the same way the ‘hotmail.com’ scenario went down.. with Microsofting of the product driving people away(and the related questions of why it doesn’t run on a Microsoft platform, the problems and costs in getting it onto a Microsoft platform). I anticipate Microsoft having to write down a large portion of the purchase to a loss.

It is also important to remember that with advertising (where both msn.com and yahoo.com), combining them into one will not increase total revenue because advertisers are presently buying space on both msn.com and yahoo.com to ensure coverage. If they combine, one only has to buy from one.

What should really happen: Microsoft to return excess cash to investors as a dividend. Spend money on improving MSN portal. Realize that eye-candy does not make a good portal.

This is not likely to happen, and Yahoo will probably sell out. This is one that anti-trust laws might apply because it reduces existing competition and there is no synergy in the merger… but then we also know that those people are currently asleep at the wheel.

[ucodegen]

@DrChaos

Google flipped the bird at the conventional wisdom, and unlike Yahoo and post 1999 Microsoft, didn’t put “adult supervision” and “business people” in charge.

PhD nerds run it, and PhD nerddom is the rule.

Looks like nerds are better at business than businessmen are at nerding.

ROTFLMAO 😎
I needed that. I have had more problems than I can talk about, trying to explain the products that the company I work for makes, to the “adult supervision”. When I see the the “adult supervision” getting into arguments about parking space, corner office, view, size of office, etc.. I ask myself.. what “adult supervision”? Would Ballmer be considered “adult supervision”?

My take on the acquisition: Microsoft is trying to take out competition. Both Yahoo and Microsoft(through MSN.com) offer much of the same: finance, search, mail.. etc. There is no synergy in this merger because the acquisition does not add any functionality to msn.com that doesn’t already exist at msn.com. The corporate cultures are much different between msn.com and yahoo.com. I also think this will happen much the same way the ‘hotmail.com’ scenario went down.. with Microsofting of the product driving people away(and the related questions of why it doesn’t run on a Microsoft platform, the problems and costs in getting it onto a Microsoft platform). I anticipate Microsoft having to write down a large portion of the purchase to a loss.

It is also important to remember that with advertising (where both msn.com and yahoo.com), combining them into one will not increase total revenue because advertisers are presently buying space on both msn.com and yahoo.com to ensure coverage. If they combine, one only has to buy from one.

What should really happen: Microsoft to return excess cash to investors as a dividend. Spend money on improving MSN portal. Realize that eye-candy does not make a good portal.

This is not likely to happen, and Yahoo will probably sell out. This is one that anti-trust laws might apply because it reduces existing competition and there is no synergy in the merger… but then we also know that those people are currently asleep at the wheel.

[ucodegen]

The only thing that makes me curious about a Prudential Realtor located in a BofA is that both BofA and Prudential have competing interests. Or at least I thought they were competing. There may be an ‘arrangement’ between the two that does not show up anywhere.

BofA
Standard banking.
Investments (Bank of America Investment Services – used to be Quick and Reilly).
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans

Prudential
Investments
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans
RE brokerage arm.

Kind of surprised that the Prudential guy would be inside a BofA considering how much the two compete with each other on products.

[ucodegen]

The only thing that makes me curious about a Prudential Realtor located in a BofA is that both BofA and Prudential have competing interests. Or at least I thought they were competing. There may be an ‘arrangement’ between the two that does not show up anywhere.

BofA
Standard banking.
Investments (Bank of America Investment Services – used to be Quick and Reilly).
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans

Prudential
Investments
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans
RE brokerage arm.

Kind of surprised that the Prudential guy would be inside a BofA considering how much the two compete with each other on products.

[ucodegen]

The only thing that makes me curious about a Prudential Realtor located in a BofA is that both BofA and Prudential have competing interests. Or at least I thought they were competing. There may be an ‘arrangement’ between the two that does not show up anywhere.

BofA
Standard banking.
Investments (Bank of America Investment Services – used to be Quick and Reilly).
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans

Prudential
Investments
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans
RE brokerage arm.

Kind of surprised that the Prudential guy would be inside a BofA considering how much the two compete with each other on products.

[ucodegen]

The only thing that makes me curious about a Prudential Realtor located in a BofA is that both BofA and Prudential have competing interests. Or at least I thought they were competing. There may be an ‘arrangement’ between the two that does not show up anywhere.

BofA
Standard banking.
Investments (Bank of America Investment Services – used to be Quick and Reilly).
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans

Prudential
Investments
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans
RE brokerage arm.

Kind of surprised that the Prudential guy would be inside a BofA considering how much the two compete with each other on products.

[ucodegen]

The only thing that makes me curious about a Prudential Realtor located in a BofA is that both BofA and Prudential have competing interests. Or at least I thought they were competing. There may be an ‘arrangement’ between the two that does not show up anywhere.

BofA
Standard banking.
Investments (Bank of America Investment Services – used to be Quick and Reilly).
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans

Prudential
Investments
Insurance
Commercial and Residential Loans
RE brokerage arm.

Kind of surprised that the Prudential guy would be inside a BofA considering how much the two compete with each other on products.

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

I never said I considered them savy. That is why I am disagreeing with your statement earlier:

“This measure will simply help those who have money get more property”.

I was using the second quoted statement:

“While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.”

to counter the first quoted statement. I don’t agree with the first quoted statement but agree with the second. I felt you were making slightly contradictory statements. I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat. The change in conforming will probably pull the wannabe savies off the fence. Instead of “wannabe savy”, I was calling them green investors or green potential buyers. The green/inexperienced label is a bit nicer than wannabe. My two last sentences in the paragraph referring to green investor/buyers could have been clearer. I consider having money and the wisdom to use it properly going hand in hand because those with money currently but lacking wisdom are soon separated from their money.

Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet.

I use facts because I know they are the only real counter argument to things that the NAR have been saying as well as other individuals/groups. I know the market is not working rationally and won’t until this thing has spent itself out. That is why I was doing a rational explanation of the liquidity, where the problems are, what is expected to happen and why the fed move and who is it really helping. Somehow people were getting the feeling that the fed dropping the rates was to help them with houses.. and I was trying to pull off the rose colored glasses.. if only for a second. I am not saying that you, SD Realtor, have rose colored glasses on. I do think there are viewers on this board who do.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

I know you are quite busy.. and that is what really scares the crap out of me. I bet the houses are not going for that much of a discount from ’05 prices. There have been several statements on the media that the turn around will occur in ’08 or ’09. I think the flattening that we will see in ’09 will be another suckers play. Neg Ams start resetting afterwards (and therefore the “All hell breaks loose.” statement).

I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…

[ucodegen]

@SD Realtor

Would you consider ANYBODY buying in the market today a “savy” buyer? The facts just show that most buyers are indeed not savy.

I never said I considered them savy. That is why I am disagreeing with your statement earlier:

“This measure will simply help those who have money get more property”.

I was using the second quoted statement:

“While the savy buyer measures value of a home with regards to market conditions, pricing, etc… many a buyer, dare I say a majority simply look at the mortgage payment.”

to counter the first quoted statement. I don’t agree with the first quoted statement but agree with the second. I felt you were making slightly contradictory statements. I was also bringing in the fact that many of the non-savy buyers have already shot their wad… of cash to coin a phrase. They don’t have money to buy in now. The ones that have money to buy in are the savy buyers (who probably haven’t contacted a Realtor yet because they know this thing has legs in the downward direction) and wannabe savy who are fence sitters sitting on the edge of their seat. The change in conforming will probably pull the wannabe savies off the fence. Instead of “wannabe savy”, I was calling them green investors or green potential buyers. The green/inexperienced label is a bit nicer than wannabe. My two last sentences in the paragraph referring to green investor/buyers could have been clearer. I consider having money and the wisdom to use it properly going hand in hand because those with money currently but lacking wisdom are soon separated from their money.

Your argument is like a college professor giving a lecture. You use facts, you point out cause and expected affects. It all makes perfect sense.

However the world is not working like that. At least not yet.

I use facts because I know they are the only real counter argument to things that the NAR have been saying as well as other individuals/groups. I know the market is not working rationally and won’t until this thing has spent itself out. That is why I was doing a rational explanation of the liquidity, where the problems are, what is expected to happen and why the fed move and who is it really helping. Somehow people were getting the feeling that the fed dropping the rates was to help them with houses.. and I was trying to pull off the rose colored glasses.. if only for a second. I am not saying that you, SD Realtor, have rose colored glasses on. I do think there are viewers on this board who do.

Anyways again, no argument with your post, except that I am a heck of alot busier then I should be given the market conditions.

I know you are quite busy.. and that is what really scares the crap out of me. I bet the houses are not going for that much of a discount from ’05 prices. There have been several statements on the media that the turn around will occur in ’08 or ’09. I think the flattening that we will see in ’09 will be another suckers play. Neg Ams start resetting afterwards (and therefore the “All hell breaks loose.” statement).

I generally use my facts and analysis on this board because I feel the “quality of clientèle” is better. If I try the logic approach to a member of the general public, it is often too much for them to handle and their eyes glaze over. They then grasp a one of the statements the RE hypers have used to counter. Sorry if I sound like Tanta or Calculated Risk…

[Author]

Posts