September 25, 2008

America Says NO to the Bush Bailout!

America Says NO to the Bush Bailout!
People’s Speak Out to Stop the Bail Out
September 25, 2008
5:00 PM – 6:30 PM

Stand with your neighbors and say NO Bush Bailout! Bush strong-armed Congress into supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has spent more than $800 billion for these wars. Now they demand a $700 billion blank check for Wall Street using fear and threats with no public debate! Bail Out the Troops and Main Street, Not Wall Street! Make some signs and bring your families and friends!
Address
front of MLK Library, 150 E. San Fernando St.
San Jose, CA 95112
Directions

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library is on the corner of San Fernando and Fourth Streets. Check the VTA web site for directions to the library by bus/light rail. If you have to drive, a parking garage is located across the street.

Burbed Reader Sunny asked me to share this with you.

Comments (364) -- Posted by: burbed @ 1:50 pm

364 Responses to “America Says NO to the Bush Bailout!”

  1. DreamT Says:

    While I fully support citizens voicing out their opinions on the street, I doubt the San Francisco Bay Area’s voice matters that much. See what happened with the protestations against the war on Iraq.

  2. WillowGlenner Says:

    Regardless of what people feel about the popularity of this bailout, I believe it will go through, because just now another huge bank failed (Washington Mutual, whoo hoo). They have an office right on Pine and Lincoln, wonder what will happen to that. Congress is scared to death, they can try to listen to their constituency but in the end the economy will collapse completely if these large banks keep failing.

  3. nomadic Says:

    Today I was surprised to read that Warren Buffett “wholeheartedly” supports the bailout:

    The Bush administration’s controversial financial bailout proposal may be getting a heavy dose of criticism today from angry lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but Warren Buffett tells us he wholeheartedly supports the plan.

    He told CNBC’s Becky Quick over the weekend, “It’s what I would do if I were there.”

  4. RealEstater Says:

    This bail out plan sounds a lot like the precursor to the Iraq War. Some imminent danger is about to befall us, and we must act now!

    As I posted yesterday, we need a stretched out recession to flush things out, not another big ticket spending binge at next generation’s expense.

    Guys, are you ready to ride out the tough times if you oppose the bail-out?

  5. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – Very self-centered and narrow-minded. The real question is the social and political impact, not the personal financial impact. Who cares that you or I can ride tough times if the neighbors have turned to anthropophagy?

  6. DreamT Says:

    I’m actually shocked that Bush hasn’t mentioned that possibility. Maybe he’s keeping it under his sleeve for tomorrow.

  7. nomadic Says:

    Which possibility? That we’ll revert to cannibalism?

    I guess you have a point, he’s certainly laid on the doom & gloom.

  8. DreamT Says:

    In the meantime, the banks have started the trend. So, soon it’ll be fashionable to eat your neighbor.
    “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst [...], for they shall be satisfied” (Matthew, 5:6)

  9. Herve Says:

    $700B for the bailout.
    $612B defense bill for 2009.
    $25B for GM, Ford and Chrysler.

    What’s next?

  10. DreamT Says:

    What’s next? SEVERANCE!

  11. madhaus Says:

    WaMu finally toppled? That took long enough.

    According to a couple diaries on Daily Kos, the Republicans all walked out of the negotiations, inspired by John McCain. I don’t think that they’re opposed to a bail-out, they’re just pissed there aren’t enough tax cuts in the deal that was close to being signed. And no, I’m not making this up.

  12. nomadic Says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Sounds more like the Republicans were going along with the Democrats and then pulled the rug out from under them this afternoon. It happened after McCain showed up but I don’t think he was behind it at all. In fact, he doesn’t seem to be playing a meaningful role at all.

  13. DreamT Says:

    nomadic –
    “pleas from a Treasury secretary who knelt before the House speaker ”
    ““I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said”

    Ms. Pelosi sees herself as Paulson’ very own Jesus Christ?…

  14. bob Says:

    That little stunt Mccain pulled off yesterday had me infuriated. It was clear immediately that he was trying to appear as a “leader” only to flub up the meeting. Additionally, if he doesn’t show up to the debates, then he will have cost The University of Missouri around 5.5 million dollars that they had to raise in order to have the debate there. Disgusting. I hope the majority of Americans see right through his little trick. I at one time had at least an inkling of respect for him, but not anymore. That guy and his running mate is a joke if I ever saw one, and if they get elected, that’s a sad sign of just how little people pay attention.

    Now that I’m done with that rant, onto the bailout. I don’t like it either. There’s a chance that regardless, we’re heading into a recession. We’re in one already in my book. But I begrudgingly support it for the one reason that they’ve already set the expectation that this bailout will save the day. If it DOESN’T pass, then the immediate reaction will be outright panic because to suggest that we needed such a huge bailout in the first place exposed just how bad the whole financial situation is. It must be passed if we intend on having anything close to a functioning economy.

    The second reason is because the average American is financially ignorant and prone to panicking. Wamu ( even though I HATED their stupid “Woo-hoo!: slogan) was not in a position to fail. What caused its failure was that first off, everyone began asking what bank would fail next. That led to speculation that WaMu was next… which was a self-fulfilling prophecy just like oil futures and prices are. Say oil will go higher, and it does. Start saying a bank will fail, and it does because everyone panics and runs on the bank. That was the case for WaMu. Again, I dislike the bailout. Nobody I know loves it. But its passage would instill confidence in the market and remove a good deal of the rot and prevent more panics. The alternative is that we all get to stand in soup kitchen lines and work for the WPA.

    Lastly, with each bank failure, the remaining banks grow larger and more powerful. This might sound great since the obvious thought is that perhaps lending will loosen with such powerful players. The truth is the opposite. Lending and credit will be more difficult to obtain. This means that it will be much harder to buy cars, houses, and procure business loans. JP Morgan actually made a statement about California Real Estate before their purchase of WaMu. They stated that RE in this state is likely to fall between 44-58%. Now why would you think they would suggest this? Because at least in the BA, a return to prices that equal 2.5-3% times earnings would mean that a couple making $100,000 a year ‘should’ only be able to buy a 250k house. A couple making 200k… a 500k house. Even as it stands now, prices here are still very, very far from real fundamentals. The market is going to shift dramatically to prices that are more inline with wages. This is because these banks are only going to lend on sound principals, and unfortunately, states like California, Florida, and NY all have some serious adjustments to make.

    But ultimately, a system that functions on more legitimate financial business is more secure. The end result that would have happened regardless of what the government, Fed, or banks did is that housing prices will ultimately fall to affordable levels. Affordable meaning that the elements of risk will be completely removed. Sorry investors… the “boom” isn’t coming back.

    So yes- I support the bailout as the lesser of two evils. It is an embarrassment and an outrage that I- who for the last 5 years have looked at all the stupid schmucks buying up way overpriced RE get their rears handed to them. Yet I will have to pay for it still. But go ahead and pass the damned thing. Get it over with.

  15. mtv-renter Says:

    Bob, Washington Mutual was not good financial position, that’s why it failed. It had $25 billion of cash and liquid assets on hand, and something close to $250 billion in outstanding loans, quite a few of which were subprime and alt-a and in a state of default. What happens is that the losses from the defaults are covered with capital, so capital was going down and it had fallen below minimum federal capitalization limits, so WaMu couldn’t make more loans. They have to re-capitalize, but nobody was willing to take the bad debt off their hands.

    WaMu is the first big bank to fail, we’ll have more, especially in CA where subprime and alt-A were most popular. This is how the market rewards foolish investment. The smart banks will survive.

  16. bob Says:

    mtv-renter,
    I respectfully disagree on some of your points. Yes- Wamu Was on trouble. But the question is would they have failed had their customer base not taken out their money. Apparently, customers pulled over 9% of Wamu’s cash holdings out of accounts, which added to the amounts they had previously written off was the final straw. This is a classic case of what happens when people panic and run on the banks. The same occured in the 30’s.

  17. Alex Says:

    2bob: 9% is not much comparing to 250 bln loan balance. That was a stupid idea for a retail bank to step into RE crap in the first place. I will not be surprised if Wells Fargo will follow the case eventually.

  18. DreamT Says:

    Haven’t had breakfast yet and already a word indigestion. Thanks bob.
    “Ce qui se conçoit bien s’énonce clairement” (Pig French)

  19. mtv-renter Says:

    You’ve hit on the fundamental cause of our problem, Bob. Fractional Reserve Banking in the form that we practice it is very susceptible to small changes in bank holdings.

    For brevity, I will refer to the entire financial industry as The Bank. The US Government requires that banks hold a fractional reserve of at least 10%. So, when you deposit $100 into The Bank, it loans out $90 to a borrower. This borrower deposits $90 into The Bank, and the bank loans out $81 to the next dude, and so forth. This way, a single deposit ends up being loaned about about ten times. Now, this system, much as I dislike it, has been working fine for a very long time, even though it is very precarious. What started happening is that the banks started to loan out those deposits into risky markets, and they started to lose them, and this loss was multiplied by the leverage.

    A bank which folds when 10% of deposits are withdrawn is ridiculous. A 10% run will happen from any natural disaster, financial regulation, etc. Lots of other banks will do fine. WaMu tried to make a leveraged profits and its bet failed.

    Next big bank to fail: Wachovia. Too bad shorting is now banned.

  20. mtv-renter Says:

    For those of you who want the bailout to happen, let me tell you why I think it’s a horrible idea.

    The bailout requires huge amounts of money which we don’t have. So far, if we include the $700B, we’re spending just shy of $2 trillion on various bailout related costs. The US has two ways of raising this money, either borrow it or print it.

    If we borrow the money, we will have to pay high interest rates to entice people to buy dollars, because the bailout will cause inflation, which will multiply the cost of this loan several fold over the term that it matures. This means we will need to raise taxes to pay the interest or the US government will default. Our economy will slow down, the dollar will weaken, and this influx of cash will also increase inflation.

    If we print the money, the dollar is dead, we’ll have hyperinflation. Houses (and other stuff) will maintain their values in dollars, but since the dollar isn’t worth much, it’s pointless.

    Now, let’s say we don’t do the bailout. We’re in for a credit crunch of epic proportions. Credit will be expensive like during the S&L crisis, on the order of 15-20% for home loans. This creates tremendous deflationary pressure, and people don’t spend during deflation. The economy will slow down, people will lose jobs, we’ll have a recession. We’ll emerge out of this recession with a very strong dollar and the financial system which led to this will be dead. The institutions which survive will be the ones who weren’t doing stupid stuff counting on a bailout.

    Either way, the economy will be a lot slower. The last few years have been an anomaly driven by heavy leverage and debt spending. People were living above their means by cashing out of the bubble, taking on more credit. Living off credit is now over, the economy will be at a level that can be justified by productivity, not by speculation. People saddled with large loans will be paying them off, leaving even fewer dollars to spend on the crap that drives our economy.

  21. DreamT Says:

    “The bailout requires huge amounts of money which we don’t have.”
    If governments were only spending money they have, there would be no deficits. Deficits are not inherently economically destructive, it depends on what the credit is used for.

    “Houses (and other stuff) will maintain their values in dollars, but since the dollar isn’t worth much, it’s pointless.”
    Inflation is the mortgage borrower’s friend: the doller is cheaper and suddenly it becomes easier to pay off that debt.

    People spend money to reward perceived creation of value (goods or services). I’d like to understand how the so-called bailout fits with that rationale. Certainly money shouldn’t be spent to prop up perception of value – it’s an unsustainable monetary policy.

  22. DreamT Says:

    Further on that note, the avowed purpose of the bailout is to “offer comfort” to the markets and “stem the paranoia”. In other words, it does not address financial or regulatory issues, it is merely a very expensive psychotherapy session for capital investors, sponsored by taxpayers.
    The numbers may make sense and the alternative may look scary, but on principle it is indefensible to support the bailout. Bob’s pragmatism sounds like hypocrisy in my opinion (mandatory bob attack of the day).

  23. bob Says:

    MTV renter,
    I too really dislike this bailout. But I think that if it doesn’t pass, the message to Wall Street will be clear: We’re Phucked, everyone take out all your money, and suddenly we’re not in a recession, but possible a depression. None of were alive then. But both my Grandparents were and I have listened to their stories.

    If that occurs, we’ll be a hell of a lot worse than in 29′. Americans are far too soft, spoiled, and overextended to be creative enough to deal with a depression on par with anything like the one we had in the 30’s.

    Anyhow, for those of you who think I’m full of crap, I did not make up the part about WaMu failing because of a run on the bank. How about reading about it yourself? That’s what I did. But to make it easy, here’s a snippet:

    …Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, said it was good news that the deal wouldn’t require taxpayer money.

    “But, that aside, this economy is in a critical stage, so there’s a sense of urgency before WaMu, there’s a sense of urgency after it,” he said.

    The Seattle-based company, which has been wracked by heavy losses from bad mortgage loans, suffered outflows of deposits totaling $16.7 billion since Sept. 15, the OTS said. Deposits have dropped to below $135 billion from over $188 billion at the end of June.

    http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200809260038DOWJONESDJONLINE000004_FORTUNE5.htm

    Hmmmmmm! OUTFLOWS of deposits! I wonder what that means?

  24. mtv-renter Says:

    DreamT, even though inflation helps debt holders, the net effect on the economy is very destructive.

  25. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT, Madhaus

    Good news. This economic crisis does not affect you guys.

    #1 If you’re not working, it doesn’t matter how bad the job market gets.

    #2 If you already have a house, it doesn’t matter if there’s no money to lend

  26. DreamT Says:

    Agree with #2 in a short-sighted way, but #1 does not apply if you’re nor working AND looking for a job.

  27. anon Says:

    Yeah. More news: If you’re currently employed, it doesn’t matter how bad the job market gets because you already have a job.

    From this we can conclude whether or not you have a job or don’t have a job, you will not be affected by the economy.

    pssst: If you need to move and there’s no money to lend, you’re stuck.

  28. bob Says:

    A few comments were made that surely- I must be an idiot because how could a bank fail with a run on it be depositors? I kid you not. I didn’t make this up. I heard it this morning on NPR and read it online. It seems to fairly common knowledge. But you all can read it here just the same:

    “Deposit run at WaMu forced their hand, regulators say”
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/09/just-as-with-in.html

  29. anon Says:

    Bloomberg is reporting the same thing as well.

    Remember, that’s what tipped it over the edge. The situation has been building before the run.

  30. RealEstater Says:

    Bank run overseas:

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4825989.ece

  31. RealEstater Says:

    News from overseas: Bank of East Asia in Hong Kong is experiencing a run on deposits as well.

  32. madhaus Says:

    bob, yeah I know you don’t really understand this stuff even though you think you do, but really…

    are you so frackin’ stupid that you don’t understand the difference between root causes and proximal causes? WaMu has been in trouble for months. They loaned out lots of toxic mortgages. They had $57 billion in Option-ARM loans. Note the date of this article – February 2008. I’ve been hearing predictions of WaMu’s failure for months. (note the date on that one, too)

    Yes, you really are that frackin’ stupid. Unbe-frackin’-lievable.

  33. bob Says:

    Madhaus…..
    You obviously didn’t understand my post. YES I agree, the root cause of the troubles for WaMu was their tie to risky loans. The incident that did them in and ultimately caused their demise was in fact a run on the banks from freaked out customers who had “heard” rumors from various news sources that Wamu Might be next. I am not the only person to mention this.I didn’t simply hypothesis about it. I heard it n NPR, the financial show I listen to, the NY times, and CNN. So if you want to claim that I am FRackin’ stupid, or whatever you people in NJ like to say,then take it up with them.I’m sure they’d love to hear your feeback. Anyhow, you all can argue and bicker amongst yourselves. Weekend time! Adios.

  34. mtv-renter Says:

    I highly recommend that everyone reads the following analysis of our financial problems written by somebody who’s clearly done their research. It’s a long read, but very worthwhile:

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/09/maturity-transformation-considered.html

    Bailout or no bailout, things will change and banking will be different.

  35. nomadic Says:

    Hate to pile on bob, but his recurring insistance of what someone “should” be able to afford in a house is really too irritating not to comment. It ignores people’s individual priorites as well as completely ignoring down payment. By his measures, I “shouldn’t” have even been able to buy the last house I owned in relatively low-cost Michigan, for pete’s sake. PITI on that place (with a 25-30% down payment) was less than what we paid in rent after moving to California. And that was trading from 3600sf to an 1100sf apartment.

    Back in the day, paying 2-3x annual income for a house was a decent rule of thumb. For first time buyers. To say it applies to someone who has owned a few times is silly. I don’t agree with RE’s apparent assertion that you should roll 3/4 (or similar) of your net worth into a house, but to not use ANY earned equity to improve your housing would be a very unusual choice. Unless you’re moving from CA to TN. ;-)

  36. bob Says:

    Nomadic,
    My comment about what should be the general percentage of income paid for a home is what is owed. So yes- I agree that if you say- put down a huge chunk of a down payment that lowers the mortgages to a more digestible level, then sure, that’s absolutely fine. But in many places like SF and so on, a lot of people were paying as much as 7-8 times income on their monthly mortgage amount, which is pretty unhealthy.

    So yes- I am in total agreement with you. I also agree that putting the majority of your wealth into a home is a wise decision. That’s a sure-fire way to be eaten alive with inflation. Most economists these days make it clear that you aught to avoid paying off a home as long as possible, but before retirement. Not to say I will do that, but I agree with their points.

    Anyhow, have a good Saturday.

  37. bob Says:

    Nomadic,
    My comment about what should be the general percentage of income paid for a home is what is owed. So yes- I agree that if you say- put down a huge chunk of a down payment that lowers the mortgages to a more digestible level, then sure, that’s absolutely fine. But in many places like SF and so on, a lot of people were paying as much as 7-8 times income on their monthly mortgage amount, which is pretty unhealthy.

    So yes- I am in total agreement with you. I also agree that putting the majority of your wealth into a home is a un-wise decision. That’s a sure-fire way to be eaten alive with inflation. Most economists these days make it clear that you aught to avoid paying off a home as long as possible, but before retirement. Not to say I will do that, but I agree with their points.

    Anyhow, have a good Saturday.

  38. Herve Says:

    Nomadic, in case you missed bob’s reply,
    bob’s comment about what should be the general percentage of income paid for a home is what is owed. So yes- bob agrees that if you say- put down a huge chunk of a down payment that lowers the mortgages to a more digestible level, then sure, that’s absolutely fine. But in many places like SF and so on, a lot of people were paying as much as 7-8 times income on their monthly mortgage amount, which is pretty unhealthy.

    So yes- bob is in total agreement with you. He also agrees that putting the majority of your wealth into a home is a wise decision. That’s a sure-fire way to be eaten alive with inflation. Most economists these days make it clear that you aught to avoid paying off a home as long as possible, but before retirement. Not to say bob will do that, but he agrees with their points.

    Anyhow, have a good Saturday.

  39. madhaus Says:

    Name an economist who says you should not pay off a home for as long as possible, but before retirement.
    Not a financial manager, an economist. I have a feeling a certain someone doesn’t understand the difference between financial planner and economist.

    btw I do not agree with that advice. My house will be paid off in 5 years. We started with a variable rate 30, refi’d into a fixed rate jumbo 30, then a conventional fixed 30, then a conventional fixed 15, and finally a conventional fixed 10, but I’m paying it off as if it were an 8 so I don’t lose ground from when I got the 15 year loan.

  40. anon Says:

    Sounds stupid to me.

    If you can afford to pay a loan off, sooner is better than later because interest has less time to accrue.

    I can’t possibly think of a reason where this would not be the case.

    What good does having outstanding debt offer?

  41. SiO2 Says:

    Anon-
    The advantage of not paying off is this:
    If you have a mortgage at 6%, you can deduct the interest. So let’s say the effective rate is 4%. Say you come into $100k (win the lottery?). You could pay down the mortgage, or invest in stocks/etc. If you pay down the mortgage, you are effectively getting a risk free return of 4%. That’s good. But if you invest, typically you would get 8% or so over time. And right now that 8% is taxed at 15% rate, not the 28% or whatever you might pay depending on your bracket. And that 28% is what the deduction of the interest is worth.

    Now, over the last year, investing would have given you -12%. That’s bad. Historically though you would get 8% or so.

    Think of the extreme case – if you could borrow money at 0% and buy CDs at 3.5%, would you? Sure, of course. Reality is not that clear cut but it’s an example.

    So that’s the theory of delaying mortgage payoff.

    Having said that, I’ve followed Madhaus’ strategy of refi-ing to shorter term and lower interest mortgages. For diversification – I have other riskier/higher return investments, so this is a good low-risk/low-return investment.

  42. bob Says:

    TONS of economists and financial planners suggest not paying off a home loan early. I listen to a guy named Rob Black. He is on daily on KRON 4. He also has a radio show in the mornings on 1550AM. He’s probably the smartest financial person I’ve listened to. He strongly recommends not paying off home loans for as long as possible.

    Now I know what you’re thinking. “If I have the money to pay off my loan… then why not pay it off early?” I admit that I too am also sort of in this line of thinking: Zero debt= better financial health… right? Not necessarily.

    So why not? The basic reason is because if you have the financial means to pay more than what your monthly mortgage happens to be, then that means you have additional money to place into retirement and 401k plans, which will give you a higher rate of return over the long run than a house will.If you’re blowing all your cash on a house rather than investing more in the market, then you’re actually losing income from said investments.

    I found a pretty good article that discusses this in depth. http://tinyurl.com/v4gan

    I cut some of the summary statements as to why NOT paying off the mortgage early is a good idea. The article summed it up nicely.

    1:Most workplace plans have matches, typically 50% of every dollar you put in up to 6% of your pay. If you’re not contributing enough to at least get the full company match, you’re leaving free money on the table (and missing out on an immediate 50% return).

    2:You save taxes on the money going in. Federal tax brackets range from 15% to 35%; there are also federal tax credits when lower-income folks make retirement contributions. When the money comes out, you’ll owe taxes, but most people’s tax rates fall in retirement compared with when they’re working.

    3:Your money can earn better returns in the market compared with paying off low-rate debt. Based on historical returns, a mix of 60% stocks, 30% bonds and 10% cash would earn an average of more than 8% a year in most 20- to 30-year periods, according to market researcher Ibbotson Associates.

    The bottom line is that having serviceable debt is not absolutely evil as long as you buy well within your means, invest in a variety of financial markets, and have emergency funds available. These should be automatic anyway. The end game is how much money you have saved for retirement. If by the time you retire the home is paid for plus you have more retirement income as a result of having invested more earlier versus having paid off the home earlier, then you will be in better shape. Both examples own their homes. The only difference is that the second person will be better off.

  43. anon Says:

    I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. Assuming you cannot get a better return on your money elsewhere, it makes no sense to delay paying your mortgage off…

    Would you guys say this is more correct?

    I’m not saying neglecting 401k, etc in order to pay your mortgage is a good idea…Never was. All I’m saying is that having extra debt accruing interest is not beneficial.

  44. bob Says:

    Well, the simple fact is that RE isn’t a better return in investing. Thus it makes more sense to invest more in the market( even though today is AWFUL),and pay less on the house to enable more investment.

    Not to say I’m necessarily going to do this. I’m in the mind to buy the whole house and have enough left over to dump in the market and so on to ride me into retirement. Probably going against the advice of the economists I quoted,admittedly.

  45. DreamT Says:

    bob – Your statements are a joke. You contradict yourself at every sentence. Read your post before clicking Submit and you’ll see that you sound like a clown.
    anon – To be fair with the comparison you’d need to project whether you truly cannot get a better return on your money, not only today but over the life of the loan. Ex: if you pay off your mortgage today and fail to invest fully in a huge bull market two years later.

  46. anon Says:

    “Well, the simple fact is that RE isn’t a better return in investing. Thus it makes more sense to invest more in the market( even though today is AWFUL),and pay less on the house to enable more investment.”

    Whoah, I don’t know about that one Bob…Stock market right now is for toying around with gambles, not long term investing…There’s no easy way out of the indulgences by the masses right now.

    DT, that’s a good point…There’s a subjective timing aspect as well. I should retract my statement and say that as a rule of thumb its best to err on the side of paying off loans sooner?

  47. bob Says:

    DreamT,
    You know what? I give up having economic discussions here.I am completely dead-serious that of the last several items that I’ve discussed, they were things that I read about or listened to on the radio from other economists and specialists and news sources.Many who are fairly well-respected in the field.Yet because those ideas don’t mesh with what YOU think is right… its stupid. Instead all I get are childish, retarded responses like: ” You’re a joke”, or ” You’re frakin’ stupid” or whatever.
    So my advice is if you want to say that I’m a joke, stupid, full of crap, or whatever,then how about spending just a few minutes actually researching what I’ve posted first? I bet you’d find that I’m not as “crazy” as you think.

    Anyhow, you and Madhaus have some serious attitude problems and lack the ability to converse without making frequent personal attacks. So to remedy the problem and tone down the nastiness and bring the peace on this blog, don’t bother replying to me anymore. I will not respond to what you or Madhaus have to write either. Don’t waste your time because I am not going to have any further dialog with either one of you.

  48. bob Says:

    Anon,
    Perhaps not this very minute, but when talks are about the stock market, its just the same as with housing. It goes up, down, and flat. But over time, as in 20-30-40 years, it performs well. The fact is that over the last 100 years, stocks gain 7-10 years. The avg return is around 7-10% annually. The avg for housing is around 6% given its ups and downs.Thus the market regularly outperforms housing which I realize most people still refuse to believe given the latest fantastic bubble… which as we’re seeing is deflating dramatically. Secondly, the housing market recovers AFTER the stock market recovers. So even for now, if you invest in stocks today, your investments will likely start gaining value before a house does.

    Again, look at it from the long term perspective. That’s where they payoff is. Not jumping into whatever is the latest fad. Its all about patience.

  49. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT says,
    >>bob – Your statements are a joke. You contradict yourself at every sentence. Read your post before clicking Submit and you’ll see that you sound like a clown.

    I encourage you to keep your conversation civil. You need to learn to attack the issues without attacking the person.

  50. anon Says:

    Bob said: “Perhaps not this very minute, but when talks are about the stock market, its just the same as with housing. ”

    It’s true, both markets appreciate over time.

    However, this is exactly the line of reasoning I rip on RE for. The only difference is the market. YOu prefer stocks, he prefers real estate.

    RE said: “encourage you to keep your conversation civil. You need to learn to attack the issues without attacking the person.”

    Hey remember this conversation?

    RE: Wo wo wo…just saw these posts. What’s with all the personal attacks? Can’t we all get along?
    Looks like the “angry renter” and “angry no-able-to-move-up buyer” syndromes are taking its toll!

    anon:
    Now, now, RE.
    The attacks are on your statements, not who you are as a person.
    Rules of the game have changed: It’s “gleeful renter” syndrome now.
    http://www.burbed.com/2008/09/23/palo-alto-houses-overbids-are-still-very-common/ POST 184

    Are you purposely paraphrasing me or are you trying to quote me? LOL

    I guess you CAN teach an old dog new tricks.

  51. DreamT Says:

    “You need to learn to attack the issues without attacking the person.”
    The issue is bob’s brain, so it’s not possible to separate the two. Here’s what bob writes:
    1. Stock market beats real estate (“simple fact”)
    2. Let me correct: Stock market is an awful investment. I’ll go and buy a house cash
    4. Let me correct: Do as I say, not as I do (“going against the advice of the economists I quoted”)
    That doesn’t sound like a clownish post to you?!?

  52. Pralay Says:

    I encourage you to keep your conversation civil. You need to learn to attack the issues without attacking the person.
    ———

    RealEstater,
    What can you expect from “amateurs types” and “angry renters”! :)

  53. DreamT Says:

    anon – Rule of thumb is that if you want to live conservatively, eliminate debts. If you want to live with risks & rewards, leverage yourself. Neither one is right or wrong…
    The former is passive gambling (currency movements, lack of investment opportunity) but at least you’re not likely to ever owe more than you can pay.

  54. bob Says:

    Anon,
    The lesson here is that it isn’t healthy to invest heavily in one item over the other. Sure- for now I’m not nuts about buying a house. At least not in the Bay Area where a larger, perhaps overly risky chunk of my income would go to a house payment. If that was the case and I lost my job( which given the economy these days…) or something else, I’d more easily be out on the street come the day that I started being unable to make house payments. That is the peril of a high priced RE market that overrides actual salaries.

    BUT in a more normalized housing market, which could mean the BA in a few more years once prices fall to levels that match incomes, or in another area where prices are already lower, buying a house makes sense. To be healthy, its wise to not only buy a house, but also buy stocks, invest in your 401k, get ROTH IRA’s, and so on. Even some cash is good. That way if something goes bad with one of those things, you still have at least something to fall back on.

    A better way of looking at it is to make as many ways as possible to cover your ass in the event of some sort of calamity. Split it up, but don’t put all the coins on red.

  55. madhaus Says:

    Nice try bob, but you fail again. Rob Black is not an economist, and I specifically asked you to name some of those “lots of economists” who make that claim. And the reason I asked you to do that is because it’s not the sort of issue that an economist would usually address, it’s more of a financial planning issue. I suspect you don’t know the difference between the two and use them interchangeably. They are not the same.

    The reason DreamT keeps calling your posts clownish is because your reading comprehension is so poor, you don’t even realize you don’t answer what’s asked, and that you cannot support any of your claims. I don’t know if I’d use the word clownish, the term I’d use is Palinesque.

    And why would you think that that mortgage reduction versus equity investing is an either-or choice? The problem with your analyses is that like Chuckie, you’re incapable of imagining any situation other than your own. Since you don’t have enough money to invest in both the stock market and a mortgage, you assume nobody else does either. Some of us have maxed out our 401K contributions; so why shouldn’t we pay down the mortgage as well?

    Where did you come up with the idea that “most companies” match 401K contributions? Have you proof for that? We haven’t had 401K matches since 1991, and given how many companies we’ve worked at, and how much longer we’ve been at it than you, I’d suspect your claim is just wrong, as usual. But feel free to back it up with some actual data, assuming your data is relevent to what I asked.

  56. anon Says:

    “anon – Rule of thumb is that if you want to live conservatively, eliminate debts. If you want to live with risks & rewards, leverage yourself. Neither one is right or wrong…
    The former is passive gambling (currency movements, lack of investment opportunity) but at least you’re not likely to ever owe more than you can pay.”

    I agree. I suppose I’m showing my conservative side because I’d still be hard pressed to find a reason to keep more debt outstanding.

    You alluded to the following point when you mentioned its passive gambling. Remember even if you are investing it somewhere else, that is a potential return of say, 10%. It’s not a guarantee. What is guaranteed, however is the interest rate one (the borrower) is paying on a mortgage (as long as one is solvent). So, one is left with the choice between paying a off guaranteed 6% or the potential to earn more. The best guaranteed interest rates I could find for a while (up till, say, about a year ago) was around 4%. This leaves around a 2% delta for guarantees. Now, that 4% is more like 1.5-2%, isn’t it?

    I would just go for the guarantee. That’s me.

    My understanding is that, prior to this bubble craze, home loans tended to have the lowest interest rates out there. School loans have also been low but they are still not THAT low. While they are low, guaranteed returns for a consumer are typically lower.

  57. DreamT Says:

    There are guarantees both ways. If you defer paying off your mortgage, the cost of doing so is guaranteed to be your mortgage interest rate adjusted for tax-exemption. That known cost of deferred payment is reassuring to most folks actually, so in that sense it is also a conservative approach (predictable risk). They can invest what they haven’t used to pay off their mortgage as conservatively or liberally as they wish.
    An added incentive to defer debt payoff is increased access to credit if you have an outstanding mortgage balance that you always pay timely. For many folks it is reassuring to know that additional credit can be tapped into if needed. Seeking financial reassurance is also akin to taking a conservative approach.
    The passive gambling I’m alluding to is the hope that 1. house prices will be nominally higher when one sells; 2. inflation will decrease the importance of the debt; 3. one wouldn’t have been smart enough (or too lazy, or too busy) to consistently earn better returns elsewhere. Most of all, I point out that any financial choice (including “doing nothing” and “clearing all debts”) carries a present cost, a future cost, and a relative inherent “opportunity loss”

  58. Moose Says:

    Bob is essentially cautioning against over investing in RE as an asset class. And in the BA that’s a real risk as many people are discovering.

    If you decide to pay down your mortgage, you may be doing just that.

    Also doing the calculations gets pretty tricky as a small percentage point either way has a huge effect over a 30 year (for eg.) period.

    You have to factor in: tax rate (fed, state, muni), tax bracket changes, loan rate, return rate, repairs, etc…inflation?

    That’s some calculator ;p

    I’ve seen some rent versus own calculators, but all of them seem too simple.

    Personally if I had everything maxed out as far as investments go I would keep serious cash on hand instead of putting more into my house.

    Of course this is only with prices being what they are in the BA…if they went down to where a mortgage payment is closer to what rent is…

  59. DreamT Says:

    Moose – I read the opposite in bob’s post. He said “I’m in the mind to buy the whole house” (post #42).

    In any case, you’re absolutely right that paying off one’s house is the same as over-investing in one asset class, which because it is rather risky, cannot be called a financially “conservative” decision…

  60. cardinal2007 Says:

    My understanding is that, prior to this bubble craze, home loans tended to have the lowest interest rates out there. School loans have also been low but they are still not THAT low. While they are low, guaranteed returns for a consumer are typically lower.

    I don’t know about you, but I have several loans at 5% or less, there is a balance transfer from 2005 at 2.99%, my undergraduate student loans at which I refinanced also in 2005 to 2.875%, and my remaining graduate student loans at 5%. I once also had a car loan at 4.125% (which I paid off with the balance transfer). Those loans were all from when I started grad school, I’m not crazy about them, but outside of my grad student loans, the other loans are lower priority. I once had a student loan at 6.8%, but I got rid of that fast.

  61. bob Says:

    My Brother is getting ready to take out a school loan for the last year of his masters, so we’re probably talking about a 5-10k loan. I never had a student loan, but I was wondering how long you can defer the loan payments? I have a few friends who even though graduated over 10 years ago have deferred their loans even to this day.

    Moose summed pretty much what the whole paying off your house versus investing argument is all about. To me, one of the biggest problems is that those who buy homes either outright, or rapidly are viewing their home the same way as stocks- which is to say that they are liquid assets. They’re not, and this is what places a major differentiation between investing in the market and “investing” in a house.

    And Madhaus, Not sure if you read my response to DreamT or not, but you are both off my radar.Don’t bother wasting my time or yours writing responses to my posts because I will not read or respond to them any further.

  62. DreamT Says:

    Happy sulking, bob. Best approach to feel better about yourself. Time-tested method too: all third-graders use it.

  63. madhaus Says:

    Awww, bob‘s taking the time to tell me that he’s read my message and that he won’t be reading my messages. How cute!

  64. madhaus Says:

    PS… and bob, everyone knows you aren’t responding because you don’t know the difference between a financial planner and an economist, and you’re too flipping embarrassed to admit it. It takes a much bigger man than you are to admit he’s in over his head and could use some more time studying.

    Never teach a pig to sing. It won’t work, the pig will squeal he can sing better than you, and you’ll get mud all over everything. And the donkey will bray that he can sing too.

  65. bob Says:

    Ok, I lied. One more comment. You want to know why I don’t care to talk to either of you- especially you Madhaus? Its because you fail to ever have constructive,objective, on-topic dialog. Like I said, go and look up some of the things I’ve written about. It takes less energy than writing ugly responses to me over something you probably don’t know much about anyway. I know damned well exactly what I talk about.I often read about these things beforehand. You want to say otherwise? Good. Start using your brain and add constructive criticism for once and stop throwing personal, mud-slinging insults. All that does is piss me off, which I’m sure is your motif anyway which to me doesn’t say much about the quality of person that you are in real life nor prove much about your intelligence either.

    Anyhow, that’s it. I’m ending my dialog with you both because this has gotten out of hand and for the sake of everyone on here, it is a mutual interest for we three to end conversation with each other. Capeche’? Good.

    My apologies to the rest of the blog for the rant.

  66. DreamT Says:

    bob – Apologies accepted.

  67. RealEstater Says:

    OK, guys and gals, ease up on the fighting. We must tolerate difference opinions, even if you strongly disagree with them!

  68. RealEstater Says:

    I meant “different” opinions. Please tolerate an occasional typo too!

  69. madhaus Says:

    Aw, isn’t that adorable! Chuckie’s telling everyone to make nice after being so mean before.

    bob, I love how you insist you know what you’re talking about while proving otherwise with every post. You are a very confused person, and the most dangerous thing about you is you have no idea how poorly you understand the world around you.

    But keep telling us how much you understand, that should prove it, huh? Don’t let little things like not knowing what an economist is when lecturing us about economic policy stop you for one minute!

    DreamT, I guess we got Sarah to go with Chuckie, huh?

  70. RealEstater Says:

    Looking at Bush administration’s record, I wouldn’t be surprised if they soon come up with a new name for the bail-out plan, such as “Economic Revitalization Plan” or “No Bank Left Behind”.

  71. RealEstater Says:

    Madhaus,

    You need to do your part if we’re all going to have peace here. It’s not very lady like to get into all the mud slinging.

  72. RealEstater Says:

    Back to the bail-out plan, I think this plan is taking America toward socialism. Instead, it’s better to let the free market work off the excesses. In the short term, there will be some pain, but as market opportunities present themselves, there will be enterprises who will find ways to profit from it. The recent move by Birkshire is one example. So what if there is no money to lend? As long as there’s a profit incentive, someone will step in to occupy the vacuum created by failed banks. So what if home prices fall? We have all of you here who have been waiting in the side lines for the past 10 years trying to take advantage!

  73. madhaus Says:

    So what if home prices fall?

    When houses in 94301 routinely sell for under a million I want to hear you say that again.

  74. RealEstater Says:

    >>When houses in 94301 routinely sell for under a million I want to hear you say that again.

    I think I’ve been consistently saying, I have no vested interest in real estate.

  75. anon Says:

    won’t happen. It will work itself out everyhere except RBA. This is what makes RBA RBA. This is a “fact.”

  76. anon Says:

    interesting. So you sold your home?

  77. RealEstater Says:

    Anon,

    I intend to be just like the owner of this house:

    http://www.burbed.com/2008/09/30/original-owner-of-this-home-has-watched-all-of-the-trees-in-this-neighborhood-grow-tall/

    Except the trees are already pretty tall…

  78. anon Says:

    Well then, let’s be clear. That means you won’t be cashing out so your equity means nothing. It’s value as an investment for what Bob is looking for is zero.

    While I’m sure you love it, Palo Alto isn’t that great.

    Vested means: fixed and absolute and without contingency; “a vested right”. Do you not have absolute title to your home?

  79. anon Says:

    Since you bought in 2003, how long do you anticipate before it has dropped to below what you paid for it?

  80. anon Says:

    Absolute, save the lien to bank, that is…

  81. RealEstater Says:

    anon,

    I don’t anticipate the price will drop at all, but I don’t really care, sinceI have no plan to sell. I can’t think of a place I’d rather move to anyways.

  82. RealEstater Says:

    LOL. I saw this coming in post #68:

    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080930/bailout_all_in_a_name.html

  83. RealEstater Says:

    LOL. I saw this coming in post #68:

    AP
    The new bailout pitch: It’s NOT a bailout
    Tuesday September 30, 5:55 pm ET
    By Tom Raum and Martin Crutsinger, Associated Press Writers
    How to sell the bailout after Congress says no: Well, for starters, don’t call it a bailout

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is searching for a new way to sell its financial rescue plan after acknowledging some blunders and missteps in presenting it the first time around. One big key: Insist it’s not a Wall Street “bailout.”

    Now it’s not about financial institutions. The focus has switched to everyday Americans. And it’s not an expenditure of taxpayer money, it’s an “investment.”

    This was clearly evident in Bush’s grim warnings on Tuesday of “economic hardship for millions” if the plan can’t be revived. He declared, “For the financial security of every American, Congress must act.”

    This emphasis was echoed on the presidential campaign trail.

    “Let’s not call it a bailout. Let’s call it a rescue,” said Republican John McCain.

    Democratic rival Barack Obama said, “This is no longer just a Wall Street crisis — it’s an American crisis, and it’s the American economy that needs this rescue plan.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s take: Its not a bailout but “a buy in, so that we can turn our economy around.”

    Bush, McCain, Obama and top congressional leaders agree the plan — which would nationalize large numbers of bad mortgages and securities tied to them — is needed to unclog the nation’s financial arteries.

    But it proved extremely unpopular across the country and was rejected on Monday in the House, a stunning setback to the administration that led to a dizzying 778-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrials. The Dow bounced back 485 on Tuesday amid word of efforts to salvage the plan.

    Language seemed to matter.

    An AP-Knowledge Networks poll last week that asked whether people supported Bush’s proposed federal “bailout” of financial institutions found only 30 percent backing it. Surveys by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center that asked whether people support “investing” or “committing” billions to keep markets secure found slightly more favoring the plan than opposing it.

    White House spokesman Tony Fratto agreed the administration’s initial efforts to explain the legislation to Congress and the public left something to be desired.

    “We need to be able to better demonstrate that there are impacts for American families, for retirees, for small businesses, for larger businesses who are hiring, for our banking system, for the ability to get home loans, for businesses to be able to make their payrolls, their small-business accounts,” Fratto said.

    He said “it’s a hard thing to do” because of the complexity of both the problem and the solution. “There are four or five steps involved … before you get to the kitchen table of the average American family and how it affects them.”

    Bush was trying on Tuesday.

    “The dramatic drop in the stock market that we saw yesterday will have a direct impact on retirement accounts, pension funds and personal savings of millions of our citizens,” he said.

    From the initial three-page request by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for unchecked powers to spend up to $700 billion with no oversight to the confusing explanations for why the plan was needed, the Bush administration’s sales pitch has followed a rocky path.

    Perhaps because he was the former CEO of investment bank Goldman Sachs, Paulson talked to lawmakers about the plan in Wall Street-speak.

    The treasury secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spent more than 10 hours before congressional committees last week trying to explain to skeptical lawmakers why the rescue package was not a Wall Street bailout.

    It was not an easy sell, in part because Paulson and Bernanke occupy jobs where most of the time they go out of their way to sound upbeat so as not to spook investors and send the markets crashing. But, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., noted after one negotiating session, “We deal with Wall Street but we also deal with Main Street.”

    “Those appointed officials, like Paulson and Bernanke, are going to have to become more realistic,” Reid said.

    To many lawmakers, the request to put so much taxpayer money at risk was politically toxic — too risky right before an election, in a vote that an opponent could cast as a bailout for Wall Street.

    “Lawmakers were upset because Secretary Paulson was asking them to give him a blank check and just go away. I think some of them were offended by what he presented to them initially,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at the Martin Smith School of Business at California State University, Channel Islands.

    Bush himself appeared uncomfortable in talking about the crisis at first. He used phrases like “a substantial step to provide additional liquidity to the U.S. financial system.” And “the American people can be sure we will continue to act to strengthen and stabilize our financial markets and improve investor confidence.”

    Now Bush is seeking to relate the crisis more directly to family and small-business economics.

    Is there time?

    Wayne Fields, an expert on political rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said “talking about it as a bailout has hurt” the plan’s chances. That’s because most Americans don’t understand the intricacies of what’s involved but can relate to seeing their tax dollars used to reward those who helped create the mess in the first place.

    “I don’t think you can change the language now,” he said.

  84. DreamT Says:

    “Language seemed to matter.”
    As if mastery of language was no longer the rule #1 of both politics and management. You cannot blunder on use of language and still call yourself a professional politician.

  85. Pralay Says:

    As if mastery of language was no longer the rule #1 of both politics and management. You cannot blunder on use of language and still call yourself a professional politician.
    ———

    And we are discussing it after four years since Bush’s won the reelection after Kerry’s infamous “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

    This bailout plan just needs another “Clear Sky Act” or “Patriot Act” kind of positive title.

  86. Pralay Says:

    Aw, isn’t that adorable! Chuckie’s telling everyone to make nice after being so mean before.
    ————–

    Being mean? He was just trying to help. Poor guy.

  87. anon Says:

    RE, “I don’t anticipate the price will drop at all, but I don’t really care, sinceI have no plan to sell. I can’t think of a place I’d rather move to anyways.”

    That’s fine, and for your purposes the actual value of the home is irrelevant. But, understand: 1) you have a vested interest. 2) it won’t pay you until you move or take out a reverse mortgage.

    So, for you to say “your home pays you – this is true every time,” you are wrong. The person you strive to be is a case in point. It paid someone else.

    DT,” You cannot blunder on use of language and still call yourself a professional politician.”

    Truer words were never spokenized.

  88. anon Says:

    I re-read that listing, and I assumed the owner died and that is why it is selling. Not sure if that is a correct assumption.

    In any case, if he’s paid, he’s not living there.

  89. RealEstater Says:

    >>1) you have a vested interest.

    Let me give a counter example. Pralay does not own a house, but he has a vested interest – in the real estate market going down.

    >>2) it won’t pay you until you move or take out a reverse mortgage.

    It pays me every time I use my house to trade up.

  90. anon Says:

    “Let me give a counter example. Pralay does not own a house, but he has a vested interest – in the real estate market going down.”

    Why? This assumes he is sitting on the sideline wanting to buy. He’s essentially shorting the market right now as he waits patiently – determining whether or not to buy from an objective standpoint. Unlike you, he has not made the decision based on nonsensical garbage spewed by real estate brokers.

    “It pays me every time I use my house to trade up.”

    No, it doesn’t. You roll your equity (savings) into the new home and you take on more debt by definition. If you didn’t, you would be either trading with no gain or trading down.

    In the meantime, hope you don’t need a new roof, or new plumbing. Because, the longer you live there, the more the physical structure deteriorates. Just like a car.

  91. RealEstater Says:

    >>He’s essentially shorting the market right now as he waits patiently

    He is not shorting anything. I would characterize it as praying desparately for the market to fall.

    >>You roll your equity (savings) into the new home and you take on more debt by definition

    Most of my equity is not from my savings, but from appreciation. Madhaus will tell you the same regarding her shack. Essentially I am traveling on rollerskates while you are on the floor crawling.

  92. anon Says:

    “He is not shorting anything. I would characterize it as praying desparately for the market to fall.”

    There is no praying, there is only watching.

    “Most of my equity is not from my savings, but from appreciation. Madhaus will tell you the same regarding her shack. Essentially I am traveling on rollerskates while you are on the floor crawling.”

    This failed to address my statements. You cannot see the forest for the trees. Homedebtors will no longer have appreciation to roll up. They will have depreciation.

  93. RealEstater Says:

    anon,

    Mortgage debt is good debt. It means you have leverage – using a small amount of money to make a lot of money.

  94. anon Says:

    And if they are forced to move, they will be forced to trade down.

  95. anon Says:

    Ok, now you’re just playing around, right? You can’t possibly be this stupid.

    If you buy a home right now, you are using a small amount of money to LOSE a large amount of money.

    If you had bought a 600,000 home a year ago, it is worth probably around 400,000. ISN’T LEVERAGE GREAT?

  96. anon Says:

    You need to sit back and think for a second before you repeat phrases like a parrot.

  97. RealEstater Says:

    anon,

    If you stay in your BA home for 15 years, it’s virtually impossible to lose money. You cannot find a 15 year span in BA history where you would lose money on a house – even in a place like East Palo Alto.

  98. WillowGlenner Says:

    well, I have to say I hate that rescue plan or whatever they are calling it but the market for real estate where I look which is the lower end areas is really stagnant right now and I think its the credit crisis or whatever they call it that is doing it. If that bailout passes there will be a silver lining for me and I can get more properties, I am thinking. The last group of REOs that came on the market sold except for a few undesirables and nothing since about mid-July out here in the 400-450K range. Loans are still ok, no problem getting a loan from Wells or BofA. Most rentals I see are over $3K now so rents seem to be holding up and way up from last year.

  99. WillowGlenner Says:

    mtv-renter, according to Paul Krugman the money for this bailout will not be printed, it is something of a loan from one of the trusts the US already maintained. its his opinion piece from yesterday, check it out. No opinion on this bailout, but if it goes through I am hoping to see more REOs on the market.. very disappointed in current selection.

    Can anyone here comment on REOs in there area? I am wondering if REOs in the bay area were basically one big swoop and this is it?

  100. RealEstater Says:

    The only part of the bail-out plan I really like is raising the FDIC limit from $100K to $250K. That way I can finally get rid of my 10 different bank accounts!

  101. RealEstater Says:

    They’re making things worse…Senate is adding a big tax cut to the bill. WTF? Pretty soon they’re going to need a rescue package for the budget deficit!

  102. RealEstater Says:

    I’m really annoyed by the new bill…the tax breaks have nothing to do with saving the failed banks. It’s just a major distraction.

  103. WillowGlenner Says:

    Well I am one who thinks they may make money on this bailout if they do it, although I am opposed to it in principle. I am familiar with some of the assets they want to buy and the problem is that foreign investors have no way of valuing them. In fact since I am not getting the REO inventory that I wanted and I find bidding for houses to be very competitive in the 400-500K range in San jose, I considered buying some of these types of assets as an investment and learned all about them. But I’m not a bond trader so likely won’t do it. Most mortgage backed securities are trading at .35 on the dollar and LESS, even in some desirable parts of CA. But Japan who usually buys these things doesn’t know which group of bonds to buy, because they are ALL rated A-grade. It is obvious that mortgages need a better rating system, maybe A for neighborhood of house, B for this house in particular because it is average not upgraded, B for this buyers credit history so overall rating is A-B-B. A rating system like that would show that this pool of houses in Napa has value because its Napa. Right now, with these ratings there is no way to know. ANd to add insult to injury with all these bank failures the banks will not lend to each other anymore. So its a complete shutdown of corporate credit. I predict they will pass this bailout or something like it actually, because the CEOs of the world are worked up and worried.

  104. WillowGlenner Says:

    Oh Christ, not more TAX CUTS. Can’t wait for the Obama administration. The only people unhappy that Obama will be elected are the producers at Saturday Night Live.

  105. WillowGlenner Says:

    Wiat a minute- check that- it looks like the new bill has an AMT rollback which is not what I thought when RE said tax cut.
    The package of tax credits will also include an annual fix to the alternative minimum tax credit so that more than 20 million middle-class Americans aren’t inadvertently affected by the tax.

    This is the ONE tax cut I actually support, not because I think people that get stuck with it are paying too much but because it is bizarre and unfair in terms of how it calculates tax.
    Hopefully Obama manages the budget better than Bush, well who can’t do that?

  106. anon Says:

    “If you stay in your BA home for 15 years, it’s virtually impossible to lose money. You cannot find a 15 year span in BA history where you would lose money on a house – even in a place like East Palo Alto.”

    Fascinating. The same is true for the stock market. This isn’t what you are writing earlier, it is a completely separate and distinct point.

    “They’re making things worse…Senate is adding a big tax cut to the bill. WTF? Pretty soon they’re going to need a rescue package for the budget deficit!”

    This might allow more idiots to buy homes. Sounds like a good thing from your point of view.

  107. RealEstater Says:

    >>In fact since I am not getting the REO inventory that I wanted and I find bidding for houses to be very competitive in the 400-500K range in San jose

    If the stock market tanks further, I think you find more money diverted to real estate. For people with cash, now is an ideal time. As some analysts have noted, there is no lack of money on the sidelines, there’s only a lack of credit.

  108. anon Says:

    “If the stock market tanks further, I think you find more money diverted to real estate. For people with cash, now is an ideal time. As some analysts have noted, there is no lack of money on the sidelines, there’s only a lack of credit.”

    Right. People (you) learned nothing from the dot com bust.

    For most people, credit is a requirement to purchase. As a result they will be unable to purchase.

  109. WillowGlenner Says:

    There is a healthy group of buyers for all desirable (non ESJ) properties in SJ at the price points I like to buy. I think the rent situation is driving property buyers because you literally can buy a place and rent it as cash flow positive. That is rare in the BA. But I was hoping for *much* more inventory now.

    On this bailout I happened to see this,
    Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas One of the leading proponents of the House Republicans’ alternative bailout plan
    I fear that ultimately it may not work. I fear it is too much bailout and not enough work out. I fear that taxpayers may end up inheriting the mother of all debts. …

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/30/us/politics/CONGRESS-VOTE-QUOTES.html

    This guy fears taxpayers are going to inherit the mother of all debts? Where the hell was he when Bush spent one trillion on the Iraq war? Or that Dept of Homeland Security which is nothing more than a license to rip off the govt? While this 700 billion is a lot of money it is NOTHING compared to what the Bush admin has spent, they have practically spent one trillion of debt PER YEAR! These republicans are too much.

  110. RealEstater Says:

    >>This is the ONE tax cut I actually support, not because I think people that get stuck with it are paying too much but because it is bizarre and unfair in terms of how it calculates tax.

    They need to get rid of AMT for all. Otherwise it’s still unfair to those who get taxed for it. However, I still see it as a separate matter from bail-out. The more stuff they roll into the bail-out, the more they over-complicate things, and the harder it will be to get agreement.

  111. RealEstater Says:

    >>Right. People (you) learned nothing from the dot com bust.

    Anon, if there’s one thing you should’ve learned from the dot com bust, is that it set off the real estate boom.

  112. RealEstater Says:

    >>While this 700 billion is a lot of money it is NOTHING compared to what the Bush admin has spent, they have practically spent one trillion of debt PER YEAR! These republicans are too much.

    Americans are going to pay a heavy price for all this spending binge. The government does not have this money. They are borrowing it from foreign countries like China. The interest on the debt alone will eat us alive.

    Here is what we really need:

    – Raise taxes
    – Cut spending
    – Forget the bail-out
    – Stop the 2 wars immediately. Let terror happen occasionally. More people die from car accidents anyways.

  113. WillowGlenner Says:

    You and I agree completely. And on the spending issue I think Obama’s number one priority should be healthcare, simply because we cannot afford this system anymore. The govt spends 450 billion on Medicare every year, we spend more on medicare than most countries spend to insure their entire population and that figure is projected to quadruple in the next 15 years. We need to get healthcare down to a more manageable 8% of GDP like what everybody else pays vs today’s 16%, with the govt paying half from taxes and individuals paying half. That represents a cost SAVINGS to most employers. It may be that the private healthcare infrastructure is no more. Too bad, so sad.

  114. RealEstater Says:

    WG,

    You know what? If we didn’t do the Iraq War, and skip this bail-out, there would be plenty of money available for healthcare and education. All those voters in flyover sh*t places that voted for Bush twice ought to be deeply ashamed of themselves. They are the one’s indirectly responsible for this mess we’re in. It’s so critically important to pick the right President. An incompetent President will do more damage to this country than any terrorist ever could.

  115. bob Says:

    I too hope Obama gets elected for none other than actually having a president that doesn’t look and sound like an idiot to the rest of the world. I too agree that nationalized health care would be a great idea. It seems to work just fine in places like the UK and Canada.

    Now as far as the bailout goes, You folks who invest in RE should probably be getting down on your knees and praying that it passes. As of this week, the LIBOR rate, which is a universal benchmark measure for mortgage interest rates is at a record high, which means even if there are people salivating at the mouth to buy more REOS, they won’t be able to buy them anyway.

    But in my opinion, this bailout has about as good a chance of solving the credit problem as if it wasn’t passed. The credit problem is far bigger than this thing can cover. We’re talking the cumulation of over 10 years of rampant borrowing and overinflation of assets. Plus the next shoe to fall is undoubtedly credit cards, which in of itself is immense.

    I fail to see how home values especially in areas like California have any chance of coming close to returning to anything even remotely close to bubble appreciation. Simply put, the investment banking system that enabled such out of control appreciation is now completely gone. That leaves only old fashioned methods such as wage, savings, and affordability to call the shots. The future likely means that if any new appreciation is to occur, it will be in the form of more traditional, 3-4% annual appreciation.

  116. RealEstater Says:

    >>As of this week, the LIBOR rate, which is a universal benchmark measure for mortgage interest rates is at a record high

    Check bankrate.com. It shows average rate is still under 6%.

    >>That leaves only old fashioned methods such as wage, savings, and affordability to call the shots.

    Well, it seems amply clear that these are the only mechanism you know of to make money; i.e. you earn it the old fashioned way, dollar by dollar. These are the tools of the masses of workers bees, rat racers, and the amateurs.

  117. bob Says:

    RE,
    Let’s put it another way. Here’s a little tidbit from the article I read this from. I’ll end the post with a question for you to answer.

    ” Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) — The cost of borrowing for one month in euros and dollars rose on speculation more financial institutions will have to be rescued amid an unprecedented collapse in lending.

    The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, that banks charge each other for such loans in euros climbed to an all-time high of 5.07 percent today, while the equivalent dollar rate surged to the highest level since January, the British Bankers’ Association said. Overnight dollar loans slid from yesterday’s record of 6.88 percent after funding constraints tied to the end of the third quarter passed. The Libor-OIS spread, a gauge of cash scarcity, held near a record.

    So in other words, if the current LIBOR rate is hovering around 6%… then that’s actually very high and as the article suggests, indicates that lending has seized up.

    Getting back to what you were disagreeing with, which is that I assume that you disagree that wages and actual income purchasing power have no effect on housing prices, then I assume that you are still in the camp to see creative financing as the way to appreciation instead. Do you deny that creative financing created the bulk of the rampant appreciation during the bubble… or was it really that people actually made enough to buy with their stated incomes? Just about any report you read, particularly in California indicates otherwise.

    So here’s the agenda for today. Creative financing is gone. Long gone. So if that be the case, then the financial system that enabled the bulk of real estate over appreciation can no longer be counted on to raise prices. If that’s the case, then what do you personally see as creating the wealth that enables further appreciation, and furthermore, on the scale that I assume you believe will occur, which is more bubble pricing?

  118. Moose Says:

    Easy credit is what led to our current price insanity here so its hard to see how a) tougher requirements for borrowing and b) higher interest rates won’t lead to numerous years of declining housing prices in the BA.

    How is this market any different than what happened to the NASDAQ in 2001?

    * spam protection question is great!

  119. bob Says:

    LOL! Yeah. The Bots must be some dumb robots!

  120. RealEstater Says:

    Bob,

    You made a few stunningly incorrect assumptions. First of all, creative financing is not the backbone of RBA real estate. Majority of the people use standard financing. Second, RBA prices are supported by strong fundamentals. There is a large pool of qualified buyers who are actively looking. I encourage you break away from your impoverished surroundings and come down here to visit some of the open houses one of these weekends. Finally to answer your question, what is creating wealth here is the innovations and entrepreneuriship that inundates Silicon Valley. The local companies here supply technology to the whole world. Tech is never ending, and so is wealth it generates.

  121. bob Says:

    Here’s what you simply don’t get. For one, RE is totally reliant on an overall strong regional market. The fact that East Palo Alto is falling in value dramatically means it is and will continue to erode neighboring area values. The bad ghetto areas affect the not-so-bad ghetto areas, then the lower income areas, middle income areas, the ultimately the upper end areas, which as proven repeatedly in history are always the last to fall in value as the whole domino effect unfolds.

    Secondly, The RBA was just as hooked to exotic loan products as the rest of the area. Indeed- those who used them might be wealthy enough to stomach loss of value in their homes. But to say that they didn’t use them is a complete lie. Without this sort of system in place, there’s a reason why sales are down in the RBA. Many RBA areas show steep declines in sales. A far greater decline from last month. That alone should tell you that indeed- all those supposedly filthy rich people probably aren’t as rich as you think they are and rely on loan products to purchase property.

    additionally, I’m sure that at one time, New Englanders all felt that the Textile industry would never fail, forever provide employment, money, jobs, and new growth. I’m also sure in Detroit that those who lives there in its golden age from the 1890’s-1950’s also felt that the automotive industry would never fail or never end. The same with countless other boom and bust cities where vast fortunes were made and lost as industry moved and changed. Tech isn’t any different. As we can see, its actually extremely volitile and tied at the hip to what the economy does per the massive drops in stock value for Apple and Google a few days ago. Secondly, the credit crisis is in fact affecting lending and financing for startups here. When that dries up, then you can say buy-bye to all that funny money floating around. Tech is not bullet proof. Believing in that religion is going to set you up for disappointment.

    Lastly, I’m not sure why you think that anywhere that isn’t in the narrow confines of a suburb on the side of a freeway is a “ghetto”. Where I live is a heck of a lot nicer than even the most expensive areas in the RBA. You call it what you want. You can’t disguise crap with high price tags, nor does higher prices indicate quality.

  122. Pralay Says:

    Unlike you, he has not made the decision based on nonsensical garbage spewed by real estate brokers.
    ——–

    And did I mention that I don’t ask people to jump off the cliff on the pretense of “helping” and based on false promise that “home price doubles in every 10 years”?

  123. Pralay Says:

    First of all, creative financing is not the backbone of RBA real estate. Majority of the people use standard financing.
    ——

    RealEstater,
    You said it several times, but when asked for statistics/data, every time you failed to provide it. Keep in mind that anecdotal evidence (your friends/colleagues) is not statistics.

  124. Pralay Says:

    If the stock market tanks further, I think you find more money diverted to real estate.
    ——–

    Except some dumb investors like Warren Buffet who decided to invest $5 billion Goldman Sachs, instead of buying real estates in RBA.

    Last Monday I had been to some open houses in Palo Alto. I found Sergey Brin and Steve Jobs there. They are planning to invest in real estates in RBA – especially after drop in price of Apple.

  125. RealEstater Says:

    Pralay,

    Do you have any statistic to show otherwise? You are the one who fail to provide any data. At a minimum, go talk to some people in the mortgage business.

    When I told you before there are very few foreclosures in the RBA. You didn’t believe it either, until Mercury News showed a foreclosure map that proved it. If what I’m saying is false (meaning, creative financing is actually the backbone of the RBA real estate), why no foreclosures?

  126. RealEstater Says:

    Quote of the day:

    “The fact that East Palo Alto is falling in value dramatically means it is and will continue to erode neighboring area values.”

    If you don’t get the laughable nature of the above statement, here’s a hint: the “neighboring area” of EPA is PA. In other words, Bob is basically saying the following:

    “The fact that East Palo Alto is falling in value dramatically means it is and will continue to erode Palo Alto values.”

  127. Pralay Says:

    Do you have any statistic to show otherwise? You are the one who fail to provide any data. At a minimum, go talk to some people in the mortgage business.
    ——

    RealEsater,
    I don’t have to disprove your theory that “majority of the people use standard financing”. It’s your job to support your own argument. When you say “majority”, you must have statistics to back up your claim. Apparently you don’t. It seems your best datapoint is talking to “some people in mortgage business”. It’s like asking car salesman about sale volume of cars.

    Statistics say otherwise – 30% of bay area loans were not “standard financing” in 2003-2006. Here something about SF market

    This year, despite a slowing housing market and lower prices, more than one-third of mortgages originated in San Francisco have been interest-only, and more than 30 percent are negative amortization.

    How about you show some datapoint to prove that RBA market was different from SF or whole bay area?

  128. DreamT Says:

    Pralay – Any area where a majority of recent buyers used creative financing is by definition NOT in the RBA. This is why Chuckie can NOT be wrong and does not need to prove his point.

  129. RealEstater Says:

    >>Statistics say otherwise – 30% of bay area loans were not “standard financing” in 2003-2006.

    30% in the entire area at the height of the easy lending days? You call that backbone? That’s your usual problem — looking at issues from 50,000 feet level.

  130. R Says:

    RE, I don’t know where you get your data but I know of numerous people that used creative financing to purchase in the mythical “RBA.” Unfortunately, I know of no published data on the topic. Time will tell. Also, people attending open houses is meaningless. I’ve been to open houses and am well-qualified but will not be buying the “RBA” until prices come in line with fundamentals (ie. drop 25%+). Everybody I talk to is of the same mind.

  131. Pralay Says:

    “The fact that East Palo Alto is falling in value dramatically means it is and will continue to erode Palo Alto values.”
    ———–

    It’s common-sense. Neighboring area always affect. I guess that was one of the reasons you moved from 94303 (where kids from EPA used to break your fence with soccer balls) to 94301.

  132. DreamT Says:

    This is why using anecdotal evidence to support RBA behavior is perfectly acceptable. Places where anecdotal evidence isn’t supported just fail to belong in the RBA.

  133. Pralay Says:

    30% in the entire area at the height of the easy lending days? You call that backbone? That’s your usual problem — looking at issues from 50,000 feet level.
    ———

    If you are zero feet from the issue, how come you failed to provide a single datapoint? Talking to “some people in mortgage business” is NOT a datapoint.

    Why don’t you support your statement “Majority of the people use standard financing“?

  134. Pralay Says:

    This is why Chuckie can NOT be wrong and does not need to prove his point.
    ——-

    OOOPS, I forgot about it. Chuckie does not need to prove his point. Everybody else needs to prove Chuckie wrong, which is impossible anyway (because Chuckie cannot be wrong). Gospel of Chuckie.

  135. bob Says:

    Bottom line, the argument RE makes is false because its pretense is that: ” The RBA is too expensive to fall”, which placed into context should’ve been the case for the entire Bay Area- the most expensive metro in the US, where just a few years ago, neighbors of mine said the exact same things: ” Everyone in the Bay Area is rich, home prices are justified by higher wages, and people are still buying” Hogwash. It all came tumbling down, and this game isn’t over yet.

    The RBA will fall in value. Most parts of it are already.

    Lastly, I would like to hear what your grand plan is RE, since you invested most of your money in your house. I’ve told people here many times what my plan is, so what’s yours? How do you expect to retire with the equity in your house without either buying smaller or buying elsewhere? How will you be able to extract the wealth if you intend to stay ( assuming banks will even allow you to do this), and what would you do if your home starts losing value dramatically, eating into your investment?

  136. Pralay Says:

    eating into your investment?
    ——-

    It is perfectly viable option in RBA considering the fact that even countertops are gourmet and crunchy.

  137. RealEstater Says:

    Pralay,

    You just disproved your own point using the data you provided. Is there any more to argue about?

    Where’s the response regarding why foreclosure rate is so low in RBA?

  138. RealEstater Says:

    >>Lastly, I would like to hear what your grand plan is RE, since you invested most of your money in your house. I’ve told people here many times what my plan is, so what’s yours?

    More erroneous assumptions? Where did I say I invested most of my money in my house? I don’t need any kind of grand escape plan. I’m just going to live in my house like your people back home. Isn’t that the way things are supposed to be?

  139. bob Says:

    You only talk about your home in terms as an investment. You’ve also mentioned that you did put a big chunk of your savings into the house to start with, hence its pending importance to maintain value. From what you say, it sounds like your home is your primary investment, and from what you’ve also mentioned- will be buying more RE as further investments. You’ve also continuously claimed that RE outperforms stocks and other financial plans.

    Thus I’m curious about how you plan on having RE pay for your retirement.

  140. anon Says:

    “Pralay,

    You just disproved your own point using the data you provided. Is there any more to argue about? ”

    Yes, Pralay, you disproved your point. You did so because I said you did, therefore I am right.

    Re: You are a fool.

  141. anon Says:

    And no, that is not a statement directed towards your statements. It is a statement directed toward your attitude, your thoughts, your pseudo-logic, your sense of entitlement, your arrogance and your ignorance.

  142. RealEstater Says:

    anon,

    Are you done with the rant? Do you have anything to contribute in terms of actual discussion on the issues?

  143. RealEstater Says:

    Bob,

    A home being an investment as well as a place to live in is not a mutually exclusive requirement. A person who thinks only in one aspect but not the other is one who’s without a plan.

    I always said majority of the money I put into my house came from equity built up from the previous house. In other words, I live on free money. Very little came from actual savings.

    You’d be foolish to keep talking about stocks at this point. Be my guest. Keep investing in stocks and lose all of your hard earned money.

    Yes, you’re right that I plan to keep on buying RE. If you make it a life long endeavor to buy RE, you’ll be all set by the time you retire, because not only do you gain through appreciation, you get rental income and tax benefits. Sure beats your strategy of escaping to a 3rd world state or 3rd world country, being supported by Social Security.

  144. madhaus Says:

    Chuckie cannot prove his statement that most RBA buyers used standard financing because

    1. He has not definied what he means by “most”
    2. He hasn’t defined what makes a house in the RBA
    3. He hasn’t defined “standard financing”

    So his assertion is meaningless. It’s like dividing by zero.

  145. RealEstater Says:

    Madhaus,

    Let’s start with you, since you live in the RBA. Do you use creative financing?

  146. madhaus Says:

    Enough about me, Chuckie. For once, let’s talk about you.

  147. bob Says:

    I’m glad that people like you exist in abundance that honestly believe that anywhere outside of the overcrowded, polluted confines of the BA is hell on earth. As I’ve stated many a time, the BA ranks fairly low in the quality of life department. The areas I seek to relocate to our far nicer, livable, cleaner, and less populated that the BA. But I’m sure saying something like that to you sounds unbelievable. That’s alright. Why- the Bay Area is all about technology!

    And I don’t know about retiring sooner than me. They say that if you live in the BA, you had better have at least 2 million saved up, and no- real estate doesn’t count. If I keep saving as I have, I’ll be able to retire in 5 years or less, and I’m only in my early 30’s. Of course it won’t be from buying houses in the BA or necessarily living a super-wealthy lifestyle… but who cares?

    Lastly, Anyone that’s got half a brain in their head is out there buying stocks. When the majority of the ignorant masses are running, that’s when you look for opportunity. The same with houses. When an earthquake happens and everyone freaks out and runs… that’s when you buy. No difference.

  148. Pralay Says:

    Pralay,

    You just disproved your own point using the data you provided. Is there any more to argue about?
    ———

    RealEstater,
    My datapoint does not prove or disprove your point. It just tells something about SF city and bay area (not specifically RBA). If you want to prove your point that majority RBA home loans are traditional, you need your own datapoint. Let’s me guess – you have none. That’s why you try to evade the question by asking counter questions. And you think you are smart and nobody can see it.

    Needless to mention that you sidetracked the actual point which you should be discussing to prove your point. Could you answer following points?
    1. What percentage of creative loan (hypothetically) that could affect RBA real estate market and depreciate the value? 5%? 10%? 20%? If so, why do you think so?
    2. Are creative loans in RBA definitely less that this percentage? If so, where is the data?

    ———-
    Where’s the response regarding why foreclosure rate is so low in RBA?
    ———

    Because that’s very silly question from a person who talks to “some people in mortgage business” too often. Same thing has been said 2 year back for whole bay area (and that includes East Bay, San Jose and Gilroy) – “foreclosures are historically low and is not going to affect local real estate market“. So just a clue for your silly question – different kind of loans have different reset timelines – some 2 years, some 5. Got it?

  149. Pralay Says:

    Do you have anything to contribute in terms of actual discussion on the issues?
    ——-

    RealEstater,
    Contribute in terms of actual discussion on the issues? How about starting with you? Stats for your statement “Majority of the people use standard financing“?

  150. Pralay Says:

    Madhaus,

    Let’s start with you, since you live in the RBA. Do you use creative financing?
    ——-

    RealEstater,
    It’s amazing how you resort to anecdotal evidence to prove your point.
    If Madhaus says she got creative financing, it does not prove that you are wrong.
    If Madhaus says she didn’t. it does not prove that you are right.

    Show me the data.

  151. Pralay Says:

    And I don’t know about retiring sooner than me.
    ————

    Bob,
    Chuckie can retire today, but some trivial things are stopping him for retiring. E.g frequent flyer mileage, paystubs (he does not care for salary though) and his trophy wife’s employer does not provide health insurance. :)
    Otherwise he would be retiring already and not “leading a mega project”.

  152. Pralay Says:

    And frequent flyer miles are like kids’ Pokemon trading cards. Unless you enough, you don’t have status and prestige. Definitely a good reason to work for it and not retire. ;)

  153. Pralay Says:

    You’d be foolish to keep talking about stocks at this point. Be my guest. Keep investing in stocks and lose all of your hard earned money.
    ——-

    Chuckie’s investment knowledge is amazing! Did Chuckie write a book? Only one thing is missing – he does not know that higher risks makes higher returns. And that’s true for any investment, including real estate. I am sure what Chuckie is saying today is said by many real estate agents in Stockton in 2003-2004, especially after dot-com bust. And probably it was said by some real estate agents before 1989 – somewhere in RBA.

  154. Pralay Says:

    As reference to “somewhere in RBA” in earlier post, I am guessing that in 1990 some realtor douchbag convinced someone that real estate in RBA a great investment (and better than stock) and made him buy this home.

    Sales History:
    Mar 09, 1990 $2,400,000
    Oct 01, 1993 $1,650,000

  155. bob Says:

    I kinda missed out on where Chuckie came from. What’s the reference? Anyhow, let’s just let this drop since its another cyclical arguments on whether homes are really worth what they currently are in the “RBA” and whether they’re superior investments. We know where everyone stands.

  156. RealEstater Says:

    Pralay,

    I see that you’re in some disarray after realizing that you’ve disproved your own point.

    Sometimes you can resolve your own stupidity by looking into yourself. The fact that you’re unable to answer the foreclosure question (i.e. why there are so few of them in RBA) should be all the explanation you need.

    Once again, go out and talk to some mortgage brokers. They do this type of work every day, and the information they can offer you is definitely not “anecdotal”.

    I don’t have time to dig up the links right now, but the subject of mortgage practicies has been brought up numerous times in foreclosure related articles in the BA papers. The reason you don’t see foreclosures in the RBA is because the smart people here didn’t buy those stupid products.

  157. madhaus Says:

    I don’t have time to dig up the links right now but the subject of… [it doesn't really matter, does it?] has been brought up numerous times in [doesn't matter] related articles in the [pick one]

    Shorter Chuckie: I cannot prove this and I’m outraged you’d tell everyone.

    So Sarah wants to know why we call him Chuckie?

  158. DreamT Says:

    bob – “let’s just let this drop”

    Roger that!!

  159. Pralay Says:

    The fact that you’re unable to answer the foreclosure question (i.e. why there are so few of them in RBA) should be all the explanation you need.
    ———

    Chuckie,
    Asnwered in #144.

  160. DreamT Says:

    Sarah was probably busy listening to the next important analysis on the radio while we lowly folks were trying unsuccessfully to divide by zero. And so life goes.

  161. Pralay Says:

    Once again, go out and talk to some mortgage brokers. They do this type of work every day, and the information they can offer you is definitely not “anecdotal”.
    ———-

    Once again it was answered. Asking mortgage broker about this info is like asking car salesman “how many reliable cars are you selling everyday?”
    Secondly, not every broker handles all kind of loans. You would not get spectrum of mortgages issues in past unless you talk to every mortgage brokers.

    Where is the data, Chuckie?

  162. Pralay Says:

    I don’t have time to dig up the links right now,
    ————-

    This statement answered the question pretty well.
    Is there anybody who would NOT interpret this statement as “I just made it up, Ok? It’s unfair for you guys to prove it.

    Now I know who is Chuckie. He is the guy who was claiming existence of Big Foot and called a press conference in Palo Alto.

  163. Pralay Says:

    The reason you don’t see foreclosures in the RBA is because the smart people here didn’t buy those stupid products.
    ——

    You mean same smart people who could not make new economic model working and caused dot-com bust as a result?

  164. cardinal2007 Says:

    Just for the record the reason I say that Belmont is not in the RBA is that prices are falling in Belmont:

    http://www.redfin.com/city/1362/CA/Belmont

    Since all cities in the RBA have steady or rising prices, Belmont is not in the RBA. (Assuming that it is would lead to a contradiction). Belmont is nice, but is no RBA. Watch out for San Carlos if it isn’t out of the RBA already it starting to head there:

    http://www.redfin.com/city/16687/CA/San-Carlos

    These places are too far north for RBA status anyway, so don’t be fooled. Seriously that is like saying Danville is RBA because prices are high there. High prices != RBA.

  165. anon Says:

    “Are you done with the rant? Do you have anything to contribute in terms of actual discussion on the issues?”

    I have just as much to add as you do.

    I keep thinking of the saying:

    “Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    You are a case in point. No matter what these people say, you stand by your bs. No matter what cites they come up with, you ask for more, and have nothing to back up your claims.

    It wasn’t a rant. It was an observation.

  166. cardinal2007 Says:

    Just for the record the reason I say that Belmont is not in the RBA is that prices are falling in Belmont:

    http://www.redfin.com/city/1362/CA/Belmont

    Since all cities in the RBA have steady or rising prices, Belmont is not in the RBA. (Assuming that it is would lead to a contradiction). Belmont is nice, but is no RBA. Watch out for San Carlos if it isn’t out of the RBA already it starting to head there:

    http://www.redfin.com/city/16687/CA/San-Carlos

    These places are too far north for RBA status anyway, so don’t be fooled. Seriously that is like saying Danville is RBA because prices are high there. High prices != RBA.

  167. anon Says:

    “As reference to “somewhere in RBA” in earlier post, I am guessing that in 1990 some realtor douchbag convinced someone that real estate in RBA a great investment (and better than stock) and made him buy this home.

    Sales History:
    Mar 09, 1990 $2,400,000
    Oct 01, 1993 $1,650,000″

    OUCH PRALAY. LOOKS LIKE THAT MILLIONAIRE GOT BURNED. That’s data from 1990 – before the internet was around!

    Tech made home price fundamentals go out thew window. You didn’t get the memo?

  168. anon Says:

    “In other words, I live on free money. ”

    Ok, this is quote of the day. Looks like Mr. Chuckster is not paying his mortgage.

    Remember the recipe for success in today’s world is easy, just buy a home and let leverage do the heavy lifting for you!

  169. anon Says:

    “I don’t have time to dig up the links right now, but the subject of mortgage practicies has been brought up numerous times in foreclosure related articles in the BA papers.”

    Here’s another gem from the guy whose up at 8:00 posting on burbed, and still up at 2:00.

    Maybe you don’t have the time because you don’t do much other than parrot the idiots who created this housing bubble.

  170. RealEstater Says:

    All,

    Pralay already provided the data that disproved his own point. What more is there that you need?

    Pralay,

    Are you going to argue with yourself now? It’s a very interesting day. Did you forget to take your med?

  171. RealEstater Says:

    anon,

    Please understand. The reason I’m up at 2AM is because I’m managing a multi-million dolalr project with teams working from multiple timezones.

  172. cardinal2007 Says:

    According to someone, (the sublink does not work, but I trust Burbed), in 2005 in the Bay Area, 28.3% of loans were negative amortization loans, and 43% were interest only loans.

    http://www.burbed.com/2007/05/14/283-of-bay-area-loans-are-negative-amortization/

    So the majority of loans in ’05 were not standard financing, in case you didn’t quite get that 43+28.3 = 71.3, 71.3% of mortgage loans from 2005 are not standard mortgage loans. Not even 1/3 of mortgages in the Bay Area in 2005 were using standard financing.

    As for the BA vs RBA I don’t know, but the vast majority of loans in the BA were NOT standard financing.

  173. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – Hopefully anon understood… but as for me, I did not. Could you expand? How many millions, what kind of project, what timezones, what deadline, what client(s), which country’s dollars, is Microsoft Project involved, and why it is important that we understand in the first place. Thank you much.

  174. R Says:

    RE, I think you need to talk to more brokers. The brokers or other in-the-know people that I have spoken with have all said that their are a LOT of option ARMs out there. Not to mention the fact I know several people in the “RBA” who purchased using them and know will probably end up turning over the keys (bought to recently to get out above water).

  175. RealEstater Says:

    R,

    Statistics show otherwise. There’s hardly any foreclosures in the RBA. I showed a foreclosures map before published by the Mercury News.

    DreamT,

    What’s your street address again?

    Cardinal,

    Useless aggregate data.

  176. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – Was that a threat, or just a convoluted way to sidestep the questions?

  177. Herve Says:

    > Keep in mind that anecdotal evidence (your friends/colleagues) is not statistics.

    I doubt he has any.

  178. R Says:

    RE, as you know, past foreclosure data has no bearing on future foreclosures. Two years ago, there were no foreclosures anywhere. Last year, foreclosures were only in bad parts of SJ. Now, they are popping up in areas like Los Gatos and Saratoga (posted here last week), which btw are the “RBA.” Again, if you are aware of any published data re: RBA lending, we’d all love to see it. In the absence of, I’ll take the word of those who have told me they bought using option ARMS and the brokers who tell me it’s out there but not yet resetting.

  179. madhaus Says:

    Herve, I finally noticed what website you’re linking to. Ahahahahaha!

    Chuckie will never answer anyone’s questions. He may “be here to help” but rest assured you’re never going to get any.

    Sarah, unlike Chuckie, may actually have some. Something about the Clampetts?

  180. anon Says:

    R, slow down there. You start your post off by saying “as you know.” Unfortunately, he doesn’t. Real Estater is still stuck in the late 90’s in terms of his mentality towards real estate.

    Here’s one, MH: Why Real Estater’s help is not needed. Those who agree with him are already well on their way to success. Those who don’t, well, they cannot be helped.

    DT, it is the former, no doubt.

    Chuck is a fool.

  181. Herve Says:

    > Herve, I finally noticed what website you’re linking to. Ahahahahaha!

    Since burbed won’t let us rickroll, that’s the second best I could do.

    Now, let’s all play Where is WaldoChuckie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DyHtbQFzN8

  182. internet user Says:

    Anon has died from a roundhouse kick backed by an ARM to the head.

  183. burbed Says:

    What the heck? Did Burbed.com suddenly become a Sierra text adventure game?

  184. RealEstater Says:

    R,

    Since the concept of RBA is only known in this site, there is no such data readily available. However, as I already mentioned, you can get the information through speaking to various mortgage brokers and lenders. I have friends who have been in the business for more than 10 years, and the info I’m sharing here is known to be correct. Another way to look at it is through foreclosure data, which I have posted here. Often times the most useful information around is not found via some SQL query like

    SELECT (COUNT *) FROM mortgage_data WHERE type = ‘Creative_Financing’

  185. RealEstater Says:

    >>past foreclosure data has no bearing on future foreclosures.

    Tell that to Pralay. He’s the one asking for useless data.

    >>Now, they are popping up in areas like Los Gatos and Saratoga (posted here last week),

    Give me a break. What’s the percentage of such incidents?

  186. internet user Says:

    Burbed.com has been swept back into the 90’s by the force of the aforementioned roundhouse kick.

  187. internet user Says:

    As a result, Real Estater’s investment “advice” has suddenly become sound. Just don’t stay in the game for more than 15 years.

  188. DreamT Says:

    “SELECT (COUNT *) FROM mortgage_data WHERE type = ‘Creative_Financing’”

    RealEstater, try COUNT(*) next time (or better COUNT(1)). A GROUP BY / HAVING clause might help as well if you want to give credible examples.

  189. Herve Says:

    > RealEstater, try COUNT(*) next time

    Give him a break, he already admitted he was just an average tech guy.

  190. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT,

    Don’t worry, offshore guys will fix the bugs. Why are you doing their job?

  191. internet user Says:

    Because he doesn’t own RBA property! Do you even have to ask?

  192. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – It’s probably not their job to make their supervisor appear credible both inside and outside of their department. Still, that was rather clueless SQL.

  193. madhaus Says:

    SQL? I thought it was COBOL.

  194. RealEstater Says:

    Madhaus,

    The world has changed since you left the work force to increase your quality of life.

  195. internet user Says:

    The world has also changed since you purchased your home.

  196. Pralay Says:

    Pralay,

    Are you going to argue with yourself now? It’s a very interesting day. Did you forget to take your med?
    ——–

    Chuckie,
    You already said that you “don’t have time to dig up”. That answers everything. You have no data to backup your statement.

  197. RealEstater Says:

    internet user,

    Of course, my home is now worth a lot more than when I bought it.

  198. Pralay Says:

    Please understand. The reason I’m up at 2AM is because I’m managing a multi-million dolalr project with teams working from multiple timezones.
    ———–

    I guess Chuckie never had to give this kind of excuses to anybody other than his boss and bossy wife. :)

    Last time I remember his excuse was that one of his kids was not feeling well and he had to stay awake.

    Or may be his kids placed in every world time zone.

  199. internet user Says:

    Chuck norris is god. We are all his children.

  200. Pralay Says:

    RealEstater – Hopefully anon understood… but as for me, I did not. Could you expand? How many millions, what kind of project, what timezones, what deadline, what client(s), which country’s dollars, is Microsoft Project involved, and why it is important that we understand in the first place. Thank you much.
    ———–

    DT,
    I am sure you met many “management class” people who run “multi million dollar projects” in hitech industry. How many of them actually talk like Chuckie? Chuckie’s word sounds more like an used car salesman who moves “cars worth of multi-million dollars” in every hour.
    BTW, this is the first time Chuckie is promoted of doing multi-thousands dollar mega project to “multi-million dollar mega project”. Give him a big hand.
    Haven’t heard about “multi thousands dollar mega project” in hitech industry? Too bad. You guys are so ignorant.

  201. RealEstater Says:

    Pralay,

    The fact is I’m far more productive than you. I can work from anywhere at any time. That’s why I am put in charge of a mega project, and you’re just like a worker bee on one of my sub-teams. I can get you laid off anytime.

  202. RealEstater Says:

    …and don’t ask DreamT for help. He’s already terminated.

  203. Pralay Says:

    I doubt he has any.
    ———-

    Actually I doubt that too.

  204. DreamT Says:

    Indeed, I still don’t understand Chuckie’s cryptic post about dollars and timezones, so I cannot help.
    As for “being” terminated (what kind of English is that?)… If you mean I was fired, *oops* you missed. :)

  205. Pralay Says:

    The fact is I’m far more productive than you. I can work from anywhere at any time. That’s why I am put in charge of a mega project, and you’re just like a worker bee on one of my sub-teams. I can get you laid off anytime.
    ———–

    Chuckie,
    You are spending hell of time to sound 1% credible in burbed.com. Nobody else here needs that kind of enormous effort to achieve such a small amount of credibility. You don’t have to take my word, just ask anybody else. I have no doubt that you are lot weaker in real life. You certainly cannot lay off me. You certainly cannot lay off ANYBODY (because I don’t think you have ability to supervise anybody in hitech industry).

  206. DreamT Says:

    In fact people with firing power (directors, heads of departments, and above) manage teams not “mega-projects”. These are more in the realm of project managers and technical leads, who have no immediate firing power, only by proxy.

  207. Pralay Says:

    BTW Chuckie, do you need a job that does make a “management class” guy to work (or stay awake) at 2AM? There are lots of jobs here which require only 9-5 kind of schedule (or may be 9-10PM in certain time of year to meet deadlines), even if those jobs involves “multiple time zone”. :)

  208. DreamT Says:

    Pralay – The management people I know have high work ethics rather than day-long “burbed” habits, are honest, direct and straightforward rather than slimy, and are very respectful of people at all level of the organization (save one who eventually got fired). Chuckie is more the PHB from Dilbert than any person I’ve ever met professionally. But then I’ve only worked in small organizations (< 200 people) where no-nonsense reigns. Chuckie’s kind are reportedly plethora in corporations structured like, say, PacBell.

  209. Pralay Says:

    Indeed, I still don’t understand Chuckie’s cryptic post about dollars and timezones, so I cannot help.
    ————–

    I don’t understand it either.
    Even an average home costs multi-million dollar in RBA. So, when someone says he is handling multi-million dollar project, that could mean he is dealing with a single home sale transaction.

    And timezone? That’s probably east coast, west cost thing. Chuckie mentioned that after stock market crash lots of people are investing in real estate. Probably a guy from Wall St (east coast time zone) is buying home in RBA.

  210. DreamT Says:

    From Wikipedia’s PHB page:
    “The Boss is technologically challenged but he stays current on all the latest business trends, even though he rarely understands them.”
    This is SO Chuckie!!!!!

  211. Pralay Says:

    Correction in #202.

    BTW Chuckie, do you need a job that does NOT make a “management class” guy to…..

  212. RealEstater Says:

    >>BTW Chuckie, do you need a job that does make a “management class” guy to work (or stay awake) at 2AM?

    Blame it on India. 2AM here is like 2PM there.

  213. RealEstater Says:

    >>In fact people with firing power (directors, heads of departments, and above) manage teams not “mega-projects”.

    Uh, I thought I just told you about sub-teams.

  214. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – submarine teams? or sub as in subway? or subpar?
    In any case, all the companies I have talked to so far extoll their decision to run a local team of engineers. I almost feel sorry for you.

  215. RealEstater Says:

    I see two fools here chatting up the night. One has a house but does not have a job. Another has a job but does not have a house. I don’t know which one I should feel more sorry for.

  216. internet user Says:

    “You are spending hell of time to sound 1% credible in burbed.com.”

    What’s even better is the fact that he doesn’t realize there is no credibility on the internet.

  217. Herve Says:

    > I don’t know which one I should feel more sorry for.

    Your wife maybe?

  218. internet user Says:

    That’s funny. I only see one fool, and he’s the one with the house and the job.

    It’s almost as though jobs, fools and houses are not related.

  219. internet user Says:

    “Blame it on India. 2AM here is like 2PM there.”

    So, the poor management class tech guy has to stay up for his worker bees? Awwww….

  220. Pralay Says:

    Blame it on India. 2AM here is like 2PM there.
    —————-

    Gosh, Chuckie. You talk as if nobody here knows where India is and no company except your company do project in India.
    First of all, your are dead wrong. 2AM here is not 2PM there. It’s actually 2-30PM during the period of west coast daylight saving time and 3-30PM during standard time.

    Secondly, your excuse (yes, it is excuse) demonstrates how little you know about offshoring project and how they they are being run. A little clue: 8-30PM here means 9-00AM in India. Provided there is a management counterpart in India, that’s the latest time you need to stay awake.

    Do you still want to claim you are in hitech industry and not a real estate agent?

  221. Pralay Says:

    That’s funny. I only see one fool, and he’s the one with the house and the job.
    ————

    Don’t forget multi-million dollar project in multiple timezone.

  222. internet user Says:

    Pralay, I think its tough to conclude the man is a real estate agent…you may be right, but I just have a gut feeling he’s not.

    He sounds like a blue collar worker who worked his way up through the ranks according to the peter principle.

  223. DreamT Says:

    #211 – No credibility on the Internet, and YET some people still manage to be less credible than others. How does one explain this paradox?
    Oh I know – Chuckiness!

  224. internet user Says:

    DT, MH and anyone else: I’m curious what your thoughts are…

  225. RealEstater Says:

    Pralay,

    What do I care if it’s 2PM or 2:30PM? I send out meeting invites in PST only. I have management counterparts in the UK too. How the hell do I keep track of these different time zones?

  226. internet user Says:

    “#211 – No credibility on the Internet, and YET some people still manage to be less credible than others. How does one explain this paradox?
    Oh I know – Chuckiness!”

    Well, there was once an idealized internet where this was true. It was transient, unregulated, and beautiful.

  227. internet user Says:

    “How the hell do I keep track of these different time zones?”

    No doubt it is tougher to keep track of a couple time zones than a (loud booming voice with echo) HUGE MEGA PROJECT.

  228. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – An impossible endeavor. Only a clock would manage to do that, and it would have to be swiss-made.
    #219 – Thoughts on whom Chuckie is? I think he’s someone who got over-promoted then mysteriously did not get fired, but might be getting in over his head as we speak. I doubt he’d ever succeed in managing people face-to-face on a daily basis, however he is articulate enough (and probably connected enough) to manage remotely.

  229. Pralay Says:

    Chuckie is more the PHB from Dilbert than any person I’ve ever met professionally.
    —————

    Actually Chuckie remind me the “new marketing guy” in Dilbert (I think it was in Way to Weasel) who claimed that he was a bigtime hunter and he just hunted a crocodile yesterday. When Dilbert wanted to see the crocodile, he replied: “Too late. I am a good sausage-maker too.”

  230. RealEstater Says:

    >>RealEstater – An impossible endeavor. Only a clock would manage to do that, and it would have to be swiss-made.

    Are you kidding? Did I miss some hidden function of my Rolex watch?

  231. Herve Says:

    We’ve been through that before, Palo Altans have issues with clock: http://www.burbed.com/2008/09/03/its-like-a-black-and-white-cookie-but-in-south-san-francisco/#comment-25383

    The rest of us are just fine.

  232. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – Don’t go for the basic model. Didn’t you learn that with your Porsche and your wife? Get the Trophy Rolex!

  233. eager student Says:

    Wow, this guy has 10 bank accounts, RBA property AND a rolex watch. Holy crap!! It must be so sweet to be a half-wit!

    RE, evidently you don’t understand it takes nothing to make bogus claims on the internet. That’s fine. You know now. Further, please take heed that even if your claims are not bogus, nobody cares.

  234. internet user Says:

    HUGE MEGA PROJECT…

    HUGE MEGA PROJECT…

    huge mega project…

    echo…

    ech…

  235. Herve Says:

    > I think he’s someone who got over-promoted then mysteriously did not get fired

    Agreed. Actually his boss must be the one laughing, sleeping well and taking his wife on dates :-)

  236. Pralay Says:

    He sounds like a blue collar worker who worked his way up through the ranks according to the peter principle.
    ————-

    Initially I thought so – probably he is either a blue collar worker or white collar worker in low level position which always wishes someday he would run a multi-million dollar mega-project. But then his constant realtor like sales-pitch makes me think otherwise. Secondly he uses certain words and phrases which come right from realtor’s dictionary and idioms books.

  237. DreamT Says:

    #219 – Furthermore, he does not react when you say “Roger that!!” and he does not have a Trophy Rolex. End of the analysis.

  238. anon Says:

    “Initially I thought so – probably he is either a blue collar worker or white collar worker in low level position which always wishes someday he would run a multi-million dollar mega-project.”

    See, judging from his inability form coherent sentences, lack of logical reasoning ability and the fact that he is technically inept, I can’t imagine he has much strong formal education. I suppose it depends on what one calls a ‘blue collar’ worker, but to me, he sounds like an mechanic who was given a tie and sat behind a desk.

    “But then his constant realtor like sales-pitch makes me think otherwise. Secondly he uses certain words and phrases which come right from realtor’s dictionary and idioms books.”

    I guess I just attribute that to an inability to reason. The garbage he repeats made a lot of people a lot of money for a time period. Now, they’re just outdated mantras.

    I suppose we’ll never know, but it sure is fun to surmise.

  239. DreamT Says:

    anon – In my opinion, he’s too articulate and witty to be blue-collar, and his logic puns seem intentional. I don’t doubt that he had a good formal education. He’s not smart enough not to contradict himself or dig himself his own hole, but seems much smarter that the average. He’s way smarter than bob for instance.
    He’s merely amoral, takes pride in that fact, and knows that this irks most of us mere mortals. He sees people, and posters, as a chess game and he thinks he’s pretty good at playing it.

  240. Pralay Says:

    What do I care if it’s 2PM or 2:30PM? I send out meeting invites in PST only.
    ——–

    Chuckie, more you try to explain, it get funnier and sillier (and that makes your explanation futile). You might have better chance to sound credible if you just shut up (or be silent – polite way to say).

    If you really don’t care about 2PM or 2:30PM, you would actually “send out meeting invite” for 9:00PM PST. The management people in India should arrive office by 9:30AM. You have your meeting and go to bed. They have their meeting, and then they start working. That’s how typically offshoring project works.

    ————
    I have management counterparts in the UK too. How the hell do I keep track of these different time zones?
    ———-
    Do you have management counterpart in Elbonia too?

    Geez, USA already have 3 major timezones. Adding UK and India makes it 5. Is it too hard to remember for a “average hitech guy”?

    The fact is that you cited UK timezone to cover up your mistake about Indian time (“I handle so many timezones and it’s difficult for me to remember all the precise times” kind of stupid explanations).

  241. anon Says:

    Ok, I have to know.

    Was that sarcasm? a blend?

  242. anon Says:

    Above was referencing post 234.

  243. Pralay Says:

    Or may be Chuckie wanted his Indian counterpart to have their lunch (typically people do lunch between 1PM-2PM in Indian offices) so that they can sleep through the whole meeting while he post comments in burbed.com. How smart! :)

  244. DreamT Says:

    anon – Consider it a non-anonymous post with an anonymous tone. After all, all non-anonymous folks are liars on the internet – your very words.

  245. DreamT Says:

    anon – If that helps, smart != intelligent != intellectual != rational != full of common sense != high “EQ”
    Think “street smart”. RealEstater posts to elicit reactions, and he gets them. He’s been achieving his goal smartly.

  246. Pralay Says:

    He sees people, and posters, as a chess game and he thinks he’s pretty good at playing it.
    ———–

    DreamT,
    In internet people rarely do so. If some people have that kind of ability (or they think that they have that kind of ability), most of them apply in their real life and generally they become successful using that ability. They definitely would not need to do pandering about their “multi-million dollar in multiple timezone”. Someone who does so in internet with a fictitious screen-name tells me only one thing – he never had such thing in his real life.

  247. Pralay Says:

    RealEstater – Don’t go for the basic model. Didn’t you learn that with your Porsche and your wife? Get the Trophy Rolex!
    ————

    Did I miss the wife part in one of the weekends when I failed to visit burbed? What is that about (unless it only about laundry)? 64 positions from Kamasutra? Stepford Wives kind of thing?

  248. anon Says:

    “anon – Consider it a non-anonymous post with an anonymous tone. After all, all non-anonymous folks are liars on the internet – your very words.”

    Ah, but you are just as anonymous as I am. I believe I said the way you can know people aren’t lying is by their anonymity. Those who make claims on the internet about themselves are most likely lying.

    Put another way, I believe Pralay nailed it right above: “Someone who does so in internet with a fictitious screen-name tells me only one thing – he never had such thing in his real life.”

    If he has a need to come here and announce it, he wants to be recognized for it. If he were actually good at it, he would receive that recognition in the real world.

  249. anon Says:

    “Did I miss the wife part in one of the weekends when I failed to visit burbed? What is that about (unless it only about laundry)? 64 positions from Kamasutra? Stepford Wives kind of thing?”

    I think with all his success, someone just threw it in there as an assumption. Then again, I don’t read burbed all that carefully.

  250. Pralay Says:

    After all, all non-anonymous folks are liars on the internet – your very words.
    ———–

    And here one anonymous guy is trying very hard to achieve credibility and trust in front of some anonymous people in internet. A smart move indeed. I guess productive too. :)

  251. anon Says:

    See, here is a man who understands the internet.

    “And I agree with completely with DreamT for his post#81 (yes, including my description). :)” -Pralay

  252. anon Says:

    “If he has a need to come here and announce it, he wants to be recognized for it. If he were actually good at it, he would receive that recognition in the real world.”

    …unless he’s selling something…

    Hm. Maybe Pralay’s on to something.

    Anyway, back to anonymity – this is the beauty of the internet. Male, female, white, black, brown, tall, skinny, rich, poor, everyone’s statements on the internet are given the same weight. They can be taken at face value.

  253. DreamT Says:

    anon – Valid point about claims, but unembellished statement of personal facts are legion here and I fail to see why you’d see them necessarily as lies. In any case, I agree that the harder one tries, the more suspicious both the veracity and the motive.
    The wife reference was in one of Chuckie’s earlier posts, about leveraging real estate to land a trophy wife. Renter4 was horrified.
    Yes Pralay got lots of good points for that post. :) Somehow I’ve let him off the hook since then. Yet he’s “ever so” relentless.

  254. DreamT Says:

    anon – You’re wrong. Impersonation and anonymity only go so far. The Internet merely changes your face. You are what and how you speak – no two people speak and think exactly the same way. You’re not unknown on the Internet, you’re just known differently.

  255. anon Says:

    I don’t necessarily see them as lies, I just disregard them as unsupportable.

    Leveraging a home to land a trophy wife. Is there no work a home can’t do? Just don’t overextend on the payments so you have no money to take a woman out. On second thought, that’s probably irrelevant as once she sees a million dollar crap box she’ll know you’re(in the proverbial sense) a catch for your shrewd money management tactics.

    I like the quote by burbed in that thread…

  256. anon Says:

    “anon – You’re wrong. Impersonation and anonymity only go so far. The Internet merely changes your face. You are what and how you speak – no two people speak and think exactly the same way. You’re not unknown on the Internet, you’re just known differently.”

    Its true, personalities shine through and posters are recognizable, but anonymity is where your true identity is unknown, not where you are not known at all.

  257. DreamT Says:

    Pralay #241 – You’re oversimplifying and so are wrong as well. The internet is a different medium of expression, not necessarily or simply a substitute for reality. The virtual excesses of an online persona are not necessarily a transposition of real-life under-achievements. But then, and I’m sorry for saying this, how one sees others is distorted by, or a partial reflection of, one’s own limitations and idiosyncrasies. In other words, the difference in how we all see RealEstater is much more telling of our personal perception of ourselves, than of what his non-virtual avatar is like.

  258. DreamT Says:

    anon #251 – I took anonymity to mean “The quality or state of being unknown or unacknowledged”, per dictionary.com
    “True” identity? What a fancy concept. Let’s not get started on what “True” means or what qualifies as an “identity”. :)

  259. bob Says:

    Holy crap! Some of you were on here at 2:00AM?! man…

    Anyhow, as Cardinal mentioned wayyyy above, more than 70% of all loans made in the BA were via creative financing at the peak of the bubble. This goes for all areas too. I found an article from 2005 when the peak had just about been reached that illustrates this well. So let’s take a trip back into the real estate time machine:

    http://tinyurl.com/agvwr

    A few experts from the article:

    Two out of three Bay Area home buyers are choosing interest-only loans, and some experts warn that the popularity of the controversial form of mortgage debt is a sign that the overheated housing market is boiling over….

    …They accounted for nearly 70 percent of home purchases in the first two months of the year in San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties, up from 18 percent in 2002 and 59 percent in 2004, according to data compiled for The Chronicle by San Francisco mortgage research firm LoanPerformance, a unit of title giant First American Corp…

    The article is interesting. If only some of the people in it were aware of what was about to happen. Let’s read some more…

    “But housing experts warn that these loans are loaded with risk. Borrowers who put down small or no down payments and who do not elect to pay principal rely almost exclusively on price appreciation to build equity. If home prices flatten or fall, borrowers could end up owing more than the home is worth…

    …”This is frightening, frankly,” said UC Berkeley economist and real estate expert Ken Rosen. “I’m worried that more and more people are using (homes) as an investment vehicle and not as a consumption market, and that’s true of the peak of housing markets. This is the edgiest we’ve been in the market for a long time. This reminds me of the late 1980s when people were speculating in the market.”…

    California Association of Realtors economist Leslie Appleton-Young admits there are some troubling potential scenarios for interest-only borrowers. But she argues that the loans are just the latest advance in the mortgage market. Little outright speculation is occurring, she said. The popularity of the loans reflects the fact that they allow people to get into homes they otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford.

    “Given the performance of the housing market over the long-term, instruments that help people get into the housing market are a good thing,” she said.

    Ha ha ha! Miss Appleton is clearly an IDIOT! She was dead wrong back then, and dead wrong now!

    More:Marketing director Kimberly Howard and pilot-in-training Edison Peinado are in the midst of closing on a one-bedroom flat in San Francisco after beating out about 10 other bidders. An interest-only loan was the only way the couple could afford the monthly payments while Peinado is in flight school and paying his dues in his first few years in the industry. They hope to offset any interest rate jumps with a larger household income, particularly if Peinado lands a lucrative air route.

    “We’re taking a risk, but it’s a calculated risk,” Howard, 37, said. “It’s a way to get our foot in the door. We’ve been all over the world, and we want to live in San Francisco.”

    Yes- indeed you did, and I’d bet that as of now, you’re probably beating yourself up over having overpaid for an apartment which is now worth a hell of a lot less. You know what they say- apartments are white-trash investments. Shoulda’ listened to that little voice in your head first.

    According to the latest figures from La Jolla’s DataQuick, the median price for a detached home in the region hit $622,000 in April, more than three times the national median.

    Well… not anymore. Now La Jolla has a median of around $403,000. OUCH! That’s called a depreciating asset baby!

    With a down payment of $100,000, Michael Kelly bought a $1 million home in Foster City last year despite the fact that he was unemployed at the time. Kelly, 42, landed an interest-only loan using stated income only; that is, he was not required to submit written proof of income. His new technology consultancy is flying, and Kelly is confident that with a fixed monthly payment of $4,200 for the first three years, he chose the right mortgage.

    Like Howard, he acknowledges some of the possible perils of his mortgage. But even in the worst-case scenario, he figures he could refinance or sell the house and move to a less expensive part of the Bay Area.

    Yes- in the worst case scenario, he could refinance or sell. Well, seeing as how refinancing is impossible now and homes aren’t selling much at all, I wonder how this little plan worked out? I thought tech guys were supposed to be the backbone of the Bay Area economy… aren’t they rich enough to not need creative financing?

  260. RealEstater Says:

    LOL. Looks like you guys had an late night / early morning conference here with an Indian guy without getting paid for it!

  261. Pralay Says:

    Yes Pralay got lots of good points for that post. :) Somehow I’ve let him off the hook since then. Yet he’s “ever so” relentless.
    ———–

    Come on, DT. Isn’t it fun to poke fun at Chuckie (and his Porsche, Rolex, Trophy wife)? You are getting taste of it lately too.

  262. DreamT Says:

    Chuckie doesn’t pay his groceries – the cashiers pay him, especially if they look foreign.

  263. Pralay Says:

    But then, and I’m sorry for saying this, how one sees others is distorted by, or a partial reflection of, one’s own limitations and idiosyncrasies. In other words, the difference in how we all see RealEstater is much more telling of our personal perception of ourselves, than of what his non-virtual avatar is like.
    ————-

    DT,
    A person rarely needs to talk about his/her car, watch, zipcode or “multi-million dollar project in multiple timezone” to achieve his/her credibility. Pick any visitor from burbed.com and verify (even if someone who posts only one comment in a month). When someone does it to build his/her amazing personality in internet, it hardly leaves any room for “perception”. You perceive what he/she writes.

    In a nutshell, someone who threatens others in internet “I can lay you off” for the purpose of proving he is truely “management class” guy in real life is more of a clown class than “management class”. Is it a distorted perception too? I don’t think so.

  264. DreamT Says:

    Pralay – Let’s say we pick our battles a bit differently. Plus he’s asking for it. :)

  265. DreamT Says:

    Pralay – In my opinion Chuckie’s only purpose in saying so is to irk you and provoke a reaction that he can mock – not to build an online personality.

  266. Pralay Says:

    LOL. Looks like you guys had an late night / early morning conference here with an Indian guy without getting paid for it!
    ————————

    Chuckie,
    Even a “worker bee” does not stay awake till 2AM have conference call in India. I guess that makes us below the level of “worker bee”. Sub-worker bee of “sub-team”? :)

  267. Pralay Says:

    Pralay – In my opinion Chuckie’s only purpose in saying so is to irk you and provoke a reaction that he can mock – not to build an online personality.
    ———————–

    DT,
    I do know that. And sometime back he did it with Madhaus too. But I reply him as long it is fun and entertaining.

    And regarding building online personality – read the link provided in post #245. That was addressed to you. What do you think? Was it to “irk or provoke” you? Or building a personality to you?

  268. DreamT Says:

    That post basically said “If you were only half as smart as me you’d listen to my advice, but you’re not even that smart”
    Definitely a provocation :)

  269. anon Says:

    “anon #251 – I took anonymity to mean “The quality or state of being unknown or unacknowledged”, per dictionary.com
    “True” identity? What a fancy concept. Let’s not get started on what “True” means or what qualifies as an “identity”. :)”

    Interesting, I think the meaning:

    “A condition in which an individual’s true identity is unknown.”

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&pwst=1&defl=en&q=define:anonymity&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

    In any case, barring a philosophical debate regarding a ‘true’ identity, the only point I was trying to make is that there isn’t correlation between who someone is on the internet, and who someone is in real life.

  270. RealEstater Says:

    Let’s back track a bit. Read post 225 again before Pralay’s false claims spreads. It was only in response to a statement regarding Swiss-made clock. I could not give another example since it’s my only time piece that’s Swiss-made.

    Similarly, regarding the zip, I never mentioned anything for the longest time, until one day Madhaus and a group of others (Pralay was involved) demanded to know. I was generous enough to provide the info, and now it’s being used against me? What’s the world coming to?

  271. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – You are using Pralay’s ethnicity against him.
    “Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?” (Matthey, 7:3)

  272. DreamT Says:

    anon – I’d not have called you an ‘ass’ (French for anon) if you had originally talked about identity correlation instead of “lies” :P

  273. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT,

    Just so that we don’t think you’re a hypocrite, what’s your reaction to Madhaus’s comment on “undeserving brown people”?

  274. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – Madhaus’ comment was “They [The Right] hate public libraries too, anything that allows “the underserving” (read: brown people) to improve their lot.”
    My reaction was mixed and not really worth posting, but since you ask…
    I think what drives political parties is money, votes and connections, not values (except for the political fringes, as long as they haven’t had a taste for power). So I would not ascribe racism to a major party. I would actually call madhaus’ comment slander.
    Except that madhaus was clearly overly sarcastic and provocative. The “They” is a giveaway: slander against whom exactly? What is “The Right”? You use this technique a lot too, so you should know.
    As for hampering access to knowledge and critical thinking habits, the few dumb politicians who would advocate this must do so out of fear that the newly enlightened citizenry turns out to be more intelligent than they are. In any case it’s a medieval approach to social politics.
    I’d have found madhaus’ comments offensive if they had been targeted at a specific sub-culture and reflected her personal opinion.
    Now I’m not clear on why you’d think I’m a hypocrite?

  275. anon Says:

    “anon – I’d not have called you an ‘ass’ (French for anon) if you had originally talked about identity correlation instead of “lies” :P”

    I didn’t catch that reference. But I also didn’t dispute your point.

  276. DreamT Says:

    That reference, not that it matters

  277. RealEstater Says:

    ass and all,

    Back to the topic of this thread. I think the U.S. government would be doing the American people a great dis-service if they try to hide the impacts from the economic crisis with a bail-out bill. The public needs to get used to living in a credit tight, fiscally responsible, even recessionary environment. The sweetners are really poisons that add to our budget deficit without solving the underlying problem.

  278. anon Says:

    No RE. You are wrong as usual.

    The credit markets are freezing. If it freezes too quickly, everything could stop. A bailout, ideally, would help ease the transition because very few people know how to live within their means.

    You have no idea the havoc unleashed from those bullshit mantras you parrot.

  279. anon Says:

    “anon – you realize your pseudonym means ‘Baby Donkey’ in French (or less kindly, ‘Young Ass’)? You might not be as anonymous as you thought after all.”

    Like I said, I don’t read burbed that carefully.

  280. RealEstater Says:

    All,

    CBS Market Watch has a article saying “Recession is now certain”. Check it out. My question to those who are still invested in the stock market is: There’s a fire in the theatre. Why are you still sitting there? This could turn out to be a very lengthy bear market. Get out and switch to more sensible investsments like gold or real estate when there’s still money left in the system. If you don’t see this one coming…you’re like those who refused to leave when Katrina and Ike hit.

  281. bob Says:

    The answer for me is that I’m leaving it in. The reason is that most investment firms, 401k’s, etc charge huge taxes on pulling your money out of accounts. You could easily lose 50% or more of your money that way.

    Secondly, I’m in it for the long term, as in several decades. Even the great depression took less than 10 years to recover, and unless all hell breaks loose, I doubt the recession which I tend to think we’ve already been in for some time will be permanent. If it is, then everyone is screwed no matter what sort of currency you have. The market will recover, stocks will go back up, and those who left their money in will be in better shape.

    The key for most people out there is to not panic, never invest with the intention of fast money, and remember that the market is cyclical.

    Let me tell you one other story. Many people think that Gold is a good safe investment. But prior to the 1930’s depression, the same was thought of with diamonds. Many families had emergency diamonds in the home and in the safety deposit box in case of some sort of financial cataclysmic failure. When that failure was the great depression, the market was instantly flooded with diamonds, which ultimately became worthless. It wasn’t until the late 40’s that Debeer’s returned diamonds to a rarity status by monopolizing the market and launching the ” Diamonds are Forever” campaign.

    Lastly, Investing in RE was what a lot of people did right after the dot-com. That was back when RE actually had some cash-flow potential and prices were much lower. BUT the problem with investing now is that by doing so, it’d be like turning around and investing in pets.com right after the dot com bust. The RE market doesn’t make sense as an investment to harbor money because RE is what is causing the current meltdown.

  282. Pralay Says:

    Let’s back track a bit. Read post 225 again before Pralay’s false claims spreads. It was only in response to a statement regarding Swiss-made clock. I could not give another example since it’s my only time piece that’s Swiss-made.

    Similarly, regarding the zip, I never mentioned anything for the longest time, until one day Madhaus and a group of others (Pralay was involved) demanded to know. I was generous enough to provide the info, and now it’s being used against me? What’s the world coming to?
    ———–

    Poor Chuckie. Always misunderstood. :(

    He never talked about his zipcode in his own. All he did is to talk about other people’s (not his own) zipcode which is not as prestigious as his zipcode.

    And regarding “my Rolex”, he just missed DreamT’s sarcasm and took it seriously with an very very very innocent mind. That’s DreamT’s fault that he did not tag it as “sarcasm”.

    It seems it not easy to be New Chuck Norris. People always misunderstand him. Poor Chuckie.

  283. Pralay Says:

    That post basically said “If you were only half as smart as me you’d listen to my advice, but you’re not even that smart”
    Definitely a provocation

    ———

    DreamT,
    Let’s see what Chuckie himself has to say about it. I bet we put him into very awkward position where he cannot agree or disagree with either of us. It’s lose-lose situation. So I guess his answer will be “you guys keep discussing at 2AM and not getting paid for it. I am not going to get so low. I have multi-million dollar mega-project to manage in multiple timezones, multiple currencies, multiple skin colors..” :)

  284. RealEstater Says:

    Bob,

    >>The reason is that most investment firms, 401k’s, etc charge huge taxes on pulling your money out of accounts. You could easily lose 50% or more of your money that way.

    Who are you trying to kid? All you need to do is sell the assets and leave them in those accounts. You won’t get taxed for switching to money market!

    >>Secondly, I’m in it for the long term, as in several decades.

    If that’s the case, RBA real estate will be the winning horse by a long shot without the associated risks.

    >>I doubt the recession which I tend to think we’ve already been in for some time will be permanent.

    In case you haven’t heard, the current events are unprecedented.

  285. Pralay Says:

    RealEstater – You are using Pralay’s ethnicity against him.
    ———–

    And I don’t blame him.
    – One guy from this ethnicity is always after him at burbed.com.
    – engineers from same ethnicity are making him awake till 2AM.
    – for office lunch, colleagues from same ethnicity are creating all kind of obstacles to go to sushi bar.
    -

  286. Pralay Says:

    If that’s the case, RBA real estate will be the winning horse by a long shot without the associated risks.
    ———

    Definitely, as “winning horse” based on extrapolation.
    :)

  287. bob Says:

    RE,
    If you sell now, you’re doing so at a severe loss. The same would be true if someone who bought the avg home in the BA 2-3 years ago sold today- they would lose money.

    Time is the most important aspect to investing. Besides, if the economy is going to go to hell in a handbasket, then your comments about RBA real estate winning big is utterly nonsensical.Nobody will pay anything close to what the demanded prices are today, which whether you like it or not are still tied to the job market.Who’s going to be those phantom buyers for overpriced RE when the economy is in the crapper?

    One could just as easily say that a person without a mortgage is actually in better condition with more flexibility in the event of a major recession whereas a homeowner would have to sell and likely sell for less than they wanted in order to move to changing job situations.

    Besides- as much as I hate it, the bailout bill is going to pass tommorow and the market is probably going to go absolutely Ape-Sh!t and it’ll be happy days all over again… we can keep right on driving ourselves into debt more and more, having borrowed almost 3/4 trillion dollars from the Chinese and Middle east.

  288. RealEstater Says:

    Bob,

    We’re seen this scenario before. When everything was dropping like flies after the dot com collapse, BA real estate was shining bright. Like I was telling you yesterday, the buyers are out there in droves. You don’t need to own stocks, but you still need a place to live.

  289. bob Says:

    RE,
    Real estate actually dropped after the dot-com. Conveniently, the Fed lowered interest rates to near zero and everyone jumped into real estate, which despite high rents per the dot-com was in comparison much cheaper than today. That is far from the case today.

    What you’re saying is: ” Boy- the economy is tanking because the Real Estate bubble popped… Better jump into real estate!” Sorry, but that’s totally ridiculous. Let me see these buyers you speak of in droves because the Dataquick numbers still show large declines in sales all across the board.

    One last thing: When the economy sucks, homes don’t appreciate. duh. Not sure what planet you’re on these days because what you’re saying makes zero sense.

    Yes- you need a place to live, which I do. Its called a rented house. There’s quite a few of them on my block alone. No problem there. Having a mortgage doesn’t make you any safer than me because your home is going to become increasingly difficult to sell in a eroding environment. You are completely wrong to assume that a home’s value stays static in an economic downturn. Quite the opposite.

  290. RealEstater Says:

    Bob,

    Things are always so straight forward, or people like you and Pralay would be rich already.

    Consider these factors:

    1. As the saying goes, they aren’t making any more land. RBA is land-locked and supply constrained.
    2. Rent is going up and will continue to do so.
    3. Inflation is at hand. RE is a hedge against inflation.
    4. In RBA, there is no price decline so far.
    5. All the standard reasons – tax shelter, long term appreciation etc.

  291. burbed Says:

    The market is definitely not going to back to Happy Days again if the bailout passes.

  292. Pralay Says:

    You don’t need to own stocks, but you still need a place to live.
    ———–

    Place to live – that’s the demand for housing. It has nothing to do with homeownership.

  293. Pralay Says:

    1. As the saying goes, they aren’t making any more land. RBA is land-locked and supply constrained.
    ——–

    I heard that catch-phrase from someone with serious face. Can anybody guess who that person was?

  294. Pralay Says:

    4. In RBA, there is no price decline so far.
    ———–

    That’s definitely true – considering the fact that we kick out any place that declines.

  295. Prof. Bleen Says:

    4. In RBA, there is no price decline so far.

    But isn’t that the definition of the RBA—exactly that part of the BA that is immune to depreciation? I call tautology on #4.

  296. bob Says:

    RE,
    Its not that straightforward.

    1: Rent is rising, I agree. But the cost of rent is still a fraction of the cost to buy. Thus a person renting is still easily capable to offset rent with gains in savings versus the majority of BA homeowners who are losing equity. The longer home prices fall, the more I save in addition to that decline. Those declines are easy to measure via any number of web sites.As long as prices fall… there’s no reason to buy is there? That is unless you expect me to want to live in the RBA, which I assure I don’t.

    2:RE is not necessarily a hedge against inflation since in fact- deflating home prices counters that right away.

  297. DreamT Says:

    Disappointing to see the crass lack of follow-up from RealEstater after #269. Who’s the hypocrit now?

  298. anon Says:

    There can be only one.

  299. RealEstater Says:

    Bob,

    What were you doing posting at 6:38PM? Were you not watching the VP debate? No wonder you don’t know what the heck is going on.

  300. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT,

    You’re a hypocrite because when Madhaus made a racist comment your reaction was only “mixed”.

  301. anon Says:

    Do you know what that word means?

  302. anon Says:

    “What were you doing posting at 6:38PM? Were you not watching the VP debate? No wonder you don’t know what the heck is going on.”

    Yes. The answers are to be found in the torrent of bullshit from Palin’s mouth. I would imagine you and her would have quite a comical conversation.

    Palin reminds me of an overgrown version of Miss Teen USA 2007 – that beauty queen who received internet fame for her dumb answer to why

  303. Herve Says:

    > Palin reminds me of an overgrown version of Miss Teen USA 2007

    You asked for it…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLO7caTEeVI

  304. madhaus Says:

    DreamT, I am somewhat surprised you misread my post as you did, but I realize you may not follow politics as much as I do. There are several movements guiding the Right rank-and-file, and what the leaders want is not necessarily what the typical voter who likes their message wants as well.

    You may want to look into the term “Dominionism.” This is a movement to install a religious (read: evangelical Christian) government in the US. The people behind it do not call attention to themselves, yet they are well-connected within the Republican Party’s power-and-money base. There are also a number of them who are OUT AND OUT RACISTS. If my statement shocked you, then you haven’t been paying attention to what some of these people are pushing. One example would be blaming the Democrats for “shoving” loans “down the throats” of “unqualified borrowers” (and I have read language from the right all over the place calling these borrowers out for being minorities). Yup, they are blaming the bailout, which was caused by greedy investment bankers and their credit default swap Ponzi game, along with the mortgage industry perpetrating out and out fraud, on brown people.

    Believe me, I am not engaging in hyperbole when I call the Right out on its racism, because that is where you consistently find it. I am not saying all Republicans are racists, but I am saying that’s where you’re more likely to find it.

    Yes, I know there are Democrats who don’t want to vote for Obama because they are racists too. But those are not the people creating policy and talking points for Democrats.

    As to why I didn’t comment on Chuckie above, I’m not reading anything new. So we have some new talking points. Rolex, Rolex, Rolex! Huge Mega-Project! Yeah, he’s smarter than Sarah, but so is almost everyone else here, so that isn’t really saying much.

  305. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – madhaus made a reference to other folks’ racist attitude, she did not make a racist comment.
    As you just proved again by twisting words and misquoting, this makes you the deceiver and therefore the hypocrite!

  306. RealEstater Says:

    anon, herve,

    I’m shocked by your attitudes of sexual discriminations. Although I’m not voting for Palin, I thought she did quite a decent job tonight. The debate was very civil and full of relevant content, which is more than what I can say about you two.

  307. madhaus Says:

    DreamT, Chuckie’s just baiting again, and by answering it, you lose. Trolls thrive on attention. By answering his posts, you give him what he wants. By reacting to his posts, you really lose.

    On the other hand, lots of mockery without ever responding directly drives them nuts.

  308. RealEstater Says:

    Madhaus,

    What do you mean I was baiting? It was DreamT who asked me twice to answer his question.

    Yeah, when people talk to me it’s reacting to baiting, when people talk to you it’s called a meaningful conversation. Are you not getting enough attention from your husband?

  309. DreamT Says:

    madhaus – I have difficulty believing that a racist fringe of the political right exercises much political power, or that they are representative of the republican party’s majority. But I would not be surprised if I am proved wrong on this. In any case, racism is like religion – a highly polarizing issue that requires common-sense treatment and should never be used as a means to an end. I see little point discussing it further on this board…

  310. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT,

    Talking about irrelevant subjects like what Madhaus was doing fits the real definition of “trolling”.

  311. DreamT Says:

    Palin was a better performer but she looked snide to me. Biden was a bit contrived. As the analyst said, everybody will have forgotten this debate in 24 hours time. It was a bit silly to see the attacks directed to the absent presidential candidates throughout the hour and a half – how convenient.

  312. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT,

    I’d say there was more at stake in tonight’s debate than what you might think. If Palin had done as poorly as in her earlier TV interviews, she could’ve really screwed up McCain’s campaign.

  313. R Says:

    “Yup, they are blaming the bailout, which was caused by greedy investment bankers and their credit default swap Ponzi game, along with the mortgage industry perpetrating out and out fraud, on brown people.”

    While there were many contributing factors, if people weren’t trying to attempt to live far beyond their means by buying houses they had no business trying to buy, there wouldn’t have been near the market for all the NINJA loans. The “professionals” weren’t the only one trying to stuff their pocket, unqualified borrowers too. Problem is, no one really will pay the price. The wall streeters and sleezy mortgage brokers got their money and don’t have to pay. Borrowers got to claim home ownership for a year or so when they otherwise wouldn’t have and can simply turn over the keys and go back to renting. The only real losers are the investors, whose securities or bank stock is now worthless.

  314. Herve Says:

    > I’m shocked by your attitudes of sexual discriminations

    I would send you a bouquet of narcissus to comfort you if I could :-)

  315. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – Nowhere do I state what I think was at stake. Neither one did poorly, both dutifully repeated the exact same content from last week’s debate, cuing each other which was rather cute since we already knew how they’d respond to each other based on last week. So this really turned out to be a non-event. This looked to me like first graders trying to show they had learned their lessons. Would either one have under-delivered as expected, things would be different.

  316. R Says:

    Biden is plainly on another level than Palin in terms of eloquence and actually answering the question and thus “won” the debate, but Palin definitely exceeded her low expectations, which was a “win” for the Mccain camp tonight.

  317. madhaus Says:

    You mean you didn’t notice the sheer number of times Palin refused to address the questions Ifill asked her and instead brought up memorized speeches? Did you watch a different debate than I did?

    Also, I think Palin has psychological damage. This is a woman running as, among other things, a mother of five. Have you EVER seen her interacting with her children on stage? She ignores them. This really showed when Biden, in responding to Palin’s truly classless comment that he had no idea what it was like to be a single parent, told the story of how he, was, in fact a single parent when his wife and a child were killed in an auto accident and two others were injured.

    Palin responded to this comment by him, where he clearly teared up, with a chirpy speech about how she and her running mates were the mavericks who would change everything.

    I can look at her response two ways. Either she is a sociopath who doesn’t recognize another person’s pain, or she was so intent on repeating her talking points, she was too tin-eared to recognize the import of what he said. Either way, it reflected very poorly on her.

  318. DreamT Says:

    Palin shrewdly and vocally refused to answer the initial deregulation question and kept at it, as advertised. Biden drowned the audience with too many dollar amounts in the middle. Palin’s endgame was weaker because she was so consistently off-topic but I maintain she was a better performer. By this of course I don’t mean eloquence, honesty or accuracy, but theatrics. Come on, you don’t think that people get elected in America because they know best? They get elected because they perform best.

  319. DreamT Says:

    I did notice that Palin twice hesitated when it was a turn to respond in kind, then lashed into several mean quotables. Can you imagine her reaction facing an assertive head of state?

  320. R Says:

    I’m just impressed Palin was able to remember all the rehearsed answers that had been drilled in her head for the 72 hours leading up to the debate. It was like somebody pulled a string on her back and Sarah’s answer began.

  321. RealEstater Says:

    I have to say a woman’s worst enemy is other women.

  322. madhaus Says:

    You did notice Sarah blamed the economic meltdown on the “toxic mess on Main Street affecting Wall Street”?

    if my embed doesn’t work click here

    That’s right! It’s all because of those horrible Main Streeters!

  323. madhaus Says:

    DreamT, a number of insta-polls run after the debate fail to agree with you. I am most interested in how unaligned voters saw the debate, those who have already decided who to vote for tend to have their current opinion validated no matter what happens.

    CBS had such a panel, and they went 2:1 for the Dems.

  324. DreamT Says:

    madhaus – No surprise there, I also thought that McCain was combative and Obama defensive, disagreeing with all post-polls. But then I have such a low opinion of the republican party, I can only be impressed. I am not one of your unaligned voters (I can’t vote anyway).
    That probably won’t tell you anything, but Biden reminds me of Strauss-Kahn and Palin of Royal. At the time, theatrics won over substance. If the opposite happens in America, all the better for the country.

  325. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT says,
    >>I can’t vote anyway

    Why is that? Are you one of those foreigners who bought in the Bay Area?

  326. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – I explained why that is in a previous post about dual citizenship. Selective reading?
    And no, I did not bring foreign funds to buy here.

  327. RealEstater Says:

    DreamT,

    I must’ve missed that. Did you say you have dual citizenship?

  328. RealEstater Says:

    All,

    As we await the bail-out bill to take shape, didn’t Bush say he was going to balance the budget in 2012 (despite not being in office)? What’s going to happen to that now?

  329. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – See it this way: you could share some of your equity with burbed – as a donation – and request in exchange a search function on past comments.

  330. bob Says:

    RE,
    Yup, I posted right before the debate. First of all, Palin sounds like the “Beave” off of Leave it to Beaver. ” Ya, golly-gee-willakers!” or… “Ya-Betcha!”

    Anyhow, she had an advantage. She was fully expected to flub it up. But she talked through the whole thing. People were not impressed with what she said, but that she said anything. To me, she seemed to be completely uninformed and uneducated. Almost all of her responses were off subject, rambling on and on about nothing in particular. I know what her tactic was: Look friendly and seemingly on the side of the average working Joe, and maybe she will make some friends out there.

    I have no doubt that a lot of people in the “heartland” are waking up today and thinking that- Gee, Palin sure is a nice woman. But on the other hand, the latest polls show that the vast majority of those who watched claim that Biden won the debate because he actually was knowledgeable about the subject.

    The polls will probably also show a slight blip with Mccain probably showing a point or two up. But the reaction was clear: Palin isn’t qualified for the job.

    Here’s my only remaining thought that might potentially be an issue for Obama. The media is making out that his surge in popularity is due to the bad economy. The massive bailout bill has been hailed as the mother of all rescues for the economy. If it passes, then wall street is going to go ape. Its already up over 200 points right now. So what will happen if by some miracle, the problems of the economy, at least perceptively go away? Will those converts switch back to Mccain? I sure hope not.

  331. RealEstater Says:

    Bob says,
    >>Yup, I posted right before the debate.

    LOL. You must’ve been watching a different debate.

  332. RealEstater Says:

    Madhaus,

    Before you go overboard with the Sarah Palin criticisms, let’s do a quick reality check. She raised 5 children. How many have you raised?

  333. DreamT Says:

    Isn’t she still raising them? Can’t exactly call it job (well) done just yet.

  334. bob Says:

    weird. I know I posted prior to the debate. Oh well. Anyhow, the polls didn’t like her very much. As I observed: Lots of fluff, and zero substance. Obama is also now up more in the polls. Mr Mccain probably fired his last salvo.

  335. Prof. Bleen Says:

    Before you go overboard with the Sarah Palin criticisms, let’s do a quick reality check. She raised 5 children. How many have you raised?

    1. Overpopulation is a serious problem; I don’t count this as evidence of good judgment.

    2. I’ll be more impressed to hear about her accomplishing something that any old cockroach can’t do. : )

  336. madhaus Says:

    DreamT, #319, you’re right, it doesn’t do me any good since I am not familiar with that race at all. Would you please recommend a good write-up of it so I can learn more?

    As to #304:

    madhaus – I have difficulty believing that a racist fringe of the political right exercises much political power, or that they are representative of the republican party’s majority. But I would not be surprised if I am proved wrong on this. In any case, racism is like religion – a highly polarizing issue that requires common-sense treatment and should never be used as a means to an end. I see little point discussing it further on this board…

    I’m actually disappointed with this answer, because you are using the argument from personal increduality, claiming because you have difficulty believing something is true you will not accept it no matter what. That’s an argument worthy of Sarah but not yourself.

    Just as I am unfamiliar with the Strauss-Kahn v. Royal campaign you allude to, I suggest that you could use some grounding in Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy and how this transformed Republican politics. It is an unspoken but fully documented fact that the Republican Party message uses coded racist terms to rally their base, and that this has been going on since 1968. Observe the switch in majority party registration in Southern states from Democratic to Republican in the years since.

    I will respect your wish to not go into this topic, but I offer that article as just an introduction to how deeply this is enmeshed into a major political party at the highest levels, and how it was also part of the other party for over 100 years in the South. I also recommend to you this blog that documents a number of instances of right-wing terrorism and violence, some of it by racists and little of it prosecuted by the current Administration because it all too well suits their purposes.

    I do this to allow anyone else following this discussion to know that I’ve can support my claims.

  337. madhaus Says:

    burbed, please release my lengthy reply to DreamT from moderation.

    Shorter version:
    – I’m not familiar with campaign you mention, educate me please
    – don’t use argument from increduality
    – read about Nixon’s Southern Strategy for proof this is happening at highest levels of Republican party
    – read Orcinus blog for more evidence of systematic use of violence, intimidation, and terrorism by right-wing, rarely prosecuted by Administration because it serves their purposes.

  338. madhaus Says:

    I would suggest that the bad behavior of Palin’s oldest two children are the results of her bad parenting. The oldest son, Track, had to enroll in the Army to escape prosecution for vandalism. The oldest daughter is a drug-user as well as a teen mother, and I still do not believe that the baby is Sarah’s biological child. I suspect he is the child of one of Palin’s children. For evidence I offer the improbably story of Palin’s keynote speech at the Republican Governor’s Association.

    We are asked to believe that an eight-months-pregnant woman (who did not appear pregnant until 7 months along on a fifth child, and that could easily be simulated with padding) flew from Alaska to Texas on a commercial flight, noticed leaking amniotic fluid yet still delivered a keynote address, failed to check into a hospital in Houston, got on a plane to Seattle, failed to check into a hospital in Seattle, flew to Anchorage, failed to check into a hospital at Anchorage, and then was driven 45 minutes to Wasilla.

    Wasilla, which had no facilities for a high-risk birth (because she already had announced the baby would have Down Syndrome, and these deliveries need special procedures because of all kinds of risks).

    But what Wasilla did have was a tame doctor who had been named to two state commissions by Palin and would thus be willing to sign anything.

    I am sorry, her behavior makes no sense unless she was not pregnant and was rushing to the side of someone who WAS.

    I’ve been 8 months pregnant, and one thing I remember is constantly having to go pee. There is no way she could have taken that 10-11 flight from Houston to Anchorage via Seattle and not have everyone around her noticing the frequent restroom visits. But none of the airline crew remember anything unusual about her and to a person none of them noticed that she was pregnant at all.

  339. bob Says:

    Prof Bleen,
    Yup. Totally agree. If every American in the US had 5-6 children… the US is screwed. This is just my opinion, but having that many kids seems a tad irresponsible.

  340. madhaus Says:

    Guess where the highest birthrates in the nation are? First is DC.

    Second is Alaska. Utah is only third.

  341. Pralay Says:

    RealEstater – See it this way: you could share some of your equity with burbed – as a donation – and request in exchange a search function on past comments.
    ———-

    Considering the fact burbed featured many of Chuckie’s comments in the past, burbed.com deserves a fraction of equity as donation.

  342. RealEstater Says:

    Prof Bleen,

    >>1. Overpopulation is a serious problem;

    Not in Alaska.

    >>2. I’ll be more impressed to hear about her accomplishing something that any old cockroach can’t do

    Keep in mind Madhaus did quit her career to do something “any old cockroach” can do.

  343. Pralay Says:

    In 2004 Kerry own all the debates. In VC debate Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney sounded and looked nicest and wisest guy on the earth. These debates are farce. It’s pointless to make any judgment (or being excited about it) from debates, considering the fact candidates mostly repeat their own talking points.
    In the end, you need to look at their past records. That’s all you need to make judgment.

  344. madhaus Says:

    Pralay, you are right. Debates don’t win elections, they are just part of the campaign. That said, McCain looks like he is falling apart. I think he’s got some really serious health issues. That is not going to help him.

    Also, rallies that feature McCain without Palin don’t have huge crowds. The Republican base loves Sarah Palin, and they don’t seem to love the guy at the top of the ticket. I find that interesting because Obama has been getting rock-star style crowds for months, which so ticked off McCain he ran that “Celebrity” ad implying Obama was as insubstantial as Paris Hilton/Britney Spears (and some thought it was another dog whistle racist attack with the whole keep that black man away from the white women!) That line of attack went away after Lalapalinza Fever hit.

    The bailout bill passed the House this morning. Any comments?

  345. Pralay Says:

    The Republican base loves Sarah Palin, and they don’t seem to love the guy at the top of the ticket.
    ———

    And Biden did quite well to highlight it. Biden did not attack Palin, rather he almost ignored her (and I think it was his strategy). For example, regarding regulation, he praised Palin’s effort in Alaska, but contrasted with MacCain’s effort in DC.

  346. DreamT Says:

    madhaus –
    The French presidential campaign had a left wing face-off prior to the ultimate presidential debate. Strauss-Kahn was the “educated folks” favorite. He eventually got the IMF top job as consolation prize. The acerb and maverick Royal (that’s her name) who kicked him in the rounds eventually went overboard in the final presidential debate and lost all credibility during a staged and contrived pseudo-infuriated bout. She isolated herself from her party in the process.
    “don’t use argument from incredulity” – you are mistaken, I am neither arguing nor discussing. Read post #304 again: it is a statement of perception only.

  347. madhaus Says:

    Schwarzenegger to U.S.: State may need $7-billion loan
    In a letter obtained by The Times, the governor warns that tight credit has dried up funds California routinely relies on and it may have to seek emergency aid within weeks.

  348. madhaus Says:

    DT, if burbed ever releases my LONGER answer it will explain why I said what I did better. I’ll have to link to it when it finally pops up, because it will appear before current item #331.

    Ah, I do remember Ségolène Royal, but had not quite gotten all the nitty gritty of what drove people away from her at the end. But unlike Perky Palin, Royal is a Socialist.

  349. DreamT Says:

    madhaus – burbed is probably off checking Gable’s End since nobody volunteered ;)
    Sure Royal is a Socialist. But she has about as many right-wing opinions as Sarkozy has left-wing values. For ex. she would send troubled kids to military camps, whereas Sarkozy prefers to offer nationalize private companies than let foreign capital acquire them. You can tag and categorize people “Right wing” and “Socialist” but it doesn’t begin to give a clue about their real values.

  350. bob Says:

    Parlay,
    Biden had to handle Palin with kid gloves. There have been debates in the past where the superior candidate makes off to appear as a bully over the weaker opponent. He had the harder job, which was to listen to her babble nonsense and do it with a smile as well as taking all of her misplaced attacks. He showed tremendous strength on all the subjects.

    Either way, the job was done. Palin wound up looking like a junior high school cheerleader. Now why there’s still a lot of folks who think she’s terrific is beyond me.

  351. DreamT Says:

    Yet another item on the list of things that are beyond bob. Ahhh, if only people were rational animals that follow the gospel of Bob!

  352. anon Says:

    if there is one thing that the real estate market has taught us, bob, it is that there is no shortage of fools.

  353. DreamT Says:

    Between greed, stupidity, ignorance, sheep mentality, short-sightedness, jealousy, and RealEstater’s advices, there is no shortage of reasons why bob’s attempts at rationalizing group behavior are forever futile.

  354. anon Says:

    It’s true. If one could predict it, they wound run the world.

  355. RealEstater Says:

    >>if there is one thing that the real estate market has taught us, bob, it is that there is no shortage of fools.

    Exactly. Look at all the priced out guys.

  356. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater #320 – Those rich foreigners may yet have the last word.
    “Those buidlings were benefiting no doubt from the cheaper dollar and wealthy foreignors” (that must be the New York spelling)

  357. Real Estater Says:

    Here are the last words (or latest words) from the Palo Alto Weekly:

    http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=9581

    Excerpts:

    Realtor Dan Dykwel recently sent out 1,000 letters in search of a Palo Alto house for a client ready to spend $2 million or more. But he didn’t find anything suitable. Demand was too high and the market too busy to uncover the perfect property, so he’ll keep looking, said Dykwel, an Alain Pinel agent.

    National financial crisis or no, the wealthy enclave of Silicon Valley will continue to experience high property demand and steady prices, Realtors and financial advisers said this week.

    First, land is scarce. In contrast to the miles of tract housing cozying up to foothills and grassy outskirts in the far-flung sprawl of Tracy and Manteca, Palo Alto has no room for major new development, according Bellumori.

    Second, school districts remain a big draw, they said.

    Third, according to Bellumori, is an unshakeable local optimism.

  358. DreamT Says:

    madhaus – Don’t you see the inconsistency between “You have difficulty believing something is true you will not accept it no matter what.
    and (from #309) “But I would not be surprised if I am proved wrong on this.” Definitely not an argument from incredulity.
    Thanks for the other two links, I’ll read and research.

  359. DreamT Says:

    RealEstater – Are you throwing the gauntlet to this board’s community to see who will manage to “shake local optimism”? Probably easier to try and lift Excalibur. Groupthink reigns supreme in Palo Alto.

  360. bob Says:

    RE,
    The comment about ” They aren’t making anymore land” is used pretty much everywhere. Take Alameda for instance. Its literally and Island, so in a way, it has a definite limitation to what can be developed. yet it costs a fraction of what Palo Alto does.

    Secondly, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. we’re in a recession. When recessions hit, people lose jobs, businesses lose money, and people buy less things like cars, TV sets, and- houses.

    The recession will rapidly accelerate the decline i housing prices.

  361. Real Estater Says:

    >>Take Alameda for instance. Its literally and Island, so in a way, it has a definite limitation to what can be developed. yet it costs a fraction of what Palo Alto does.

    That can be easily explained. Alameda is not RBA, thus it is not special.

    >>When recessions hit, people lose jobs, businesses lose money, and people buy less things like cars, TV sets, and- houses.

    >>The recession will rapidly accelerate the decline i housing prices.

    What you say is true everywhere else, but not in RBA; the article I showed explains some of the reasons why.

  362. R Says:

    Imagine, a Realtor pitching real estate. Hard to fathom. And I didn’t know they were building more land in places like Sunnyvale, Mt View, Los Gatos, Belmont, etc. Guess I learn something every day.

  363. WillowGlenner Says:

    Apparently Palin’s initial greeting “can I call you Joe” was intended entirely to facilitate her soundbyte “say it aint so, Joe”. For me, she’s way overly folksy. I’ve had it with Bush and would be unlikely to vote for that ticket anyway, but she is about as unappealing as a candidate as any I’ve ever seen. The problem manifests itself every time she opens her mouth.

    My opinion was Biden hit a home run with his statements that McCain had been no maverick on the things people care about. Biden seemed much more authentic to me. Biden had an INCREDIBLE retort to Palin’s kitchen table lead in about being a parent of a kid going to Iraq. I was impressed with Biden, never had any opinion of him before.

    On the economy, we’ll have to see if we are affected here. So far no impact from the weak economy in the bay area with our multinational firms. There is a lot of Greentech funding here and that will do well with a Democratic president, senate and house.

  364. RealEstater Says:

    >>For me, she’s way overly folksy. I’ve had it with Bush and would be unlikely to vote for that ticket anyway, but she is about as unappealing as a candidate as any I’ve ever seen.

    I think that’s pretty standard reaction from the smart people in the Bay Area. However, when you go to the heartland, they do go for that kind of stuff.

    >>I was impressed with Biden, never had any opinion of him before.

    Actually I’ve always like Biden. He’s one of the senior statesman in this country, and underrated. I couldn’t be happier seeing him on the ticket. Obama was not my first choice on the Democratic side, but the ticket got better with Biden on it.


Leave a Reply

Please be nice. No name calling, no personal attacks, no racist stuff, no baiting, etc. Let's be nice to each other in the true Bay Area spirit! (Comments may be edited/removed without notice.)