Who has the MONEY?

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by benco57

... I have never lost money on land. I have bought some and held it for much longer than I wanted, but I have always profited. ...

Is that still true when you factor in transactions costs, property taxes and especially inflation? My mom's fond of telling people what a fantabulous investment their first house was, but when you calculate it out over the 43 years they owned it they only "made" a few per cent on the "investment".

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

If I bought a stock at $100 and it is now $50.........I have lost 50% of my "initial investment" but, no one actually has my other $50.

If you buy a stock for $100, you exchange $100 cash for a piece of paper. You're out the entire $100 until you find a bigger sucker to pass the paper off onto, and whoever you bought the stock from has the entire $100 cash.

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

If you buy a stock for $100, you exchange $100 cash for a piece of paper. You're out the entire $100 until you redeem the paper, and whoever you bought the stock from has the cash.

That's what I said................


"As I mentioned above, the person I bought the stock from has my whole $100 but...........it's not a "loss" until I lock it in by actually selling it for the $5."

[Brian_C]

Originally Posted by checkthisout

These things were going to tank two years ago but the purposeful laxing of lending standards and creation of Sub-Prime loans kept the bubble inflated and bought the CEO's and managers more time to pay out their bonuses and get out.

Uh...subprime loans have been around for decades. Anyone remember "Hi this is Phil Rizzuto for The Money Store"? That's decades ago.

The problem wasn't the creation of subprime, it was the fact that all the banks got involved with it. Up until the last few years, banks didn't want any part of subprime lending. And frankly, they should have stayed out of it because they had no clue what they were doing. Banks are credit lenders, subprime companies were always equity lenders. When the banks got involved, somewhat at the requirements of CRA, they mixed credit and equity lending together and created a recipe for disaster.

In the end, every company was funding loans based on what Wall Street would buy. And what they bought was unbelievable. It got to a point where you could qualify for a loan if you could make a mirror fog up. (slight exaggeration) Now subprime is gone, which is bad. Even the old make-sense subprime guidelinesare gone. And the consequence is ALL mortgage guidelines have changed dramatically. We have swung so far back in the direction of safety that next to no one can qualify for any home loan at all.

So, how do we get home loans going again so people can buy homes or refinance into a lower rate? Do we continue to bailout those who invested in bad loans so they can invest in good loans? What is a good loan? Who is going to determine what constitutes a good loan? How do you get the Wall Streeters, who are currently getting bashed for making bad loans, to loosen underwriting guidelines so someone can actually qualify? Answer these questions and you'll be well on your way to a significant part of an economic recovery.

[benco57]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Is that still true when you factor in transactions costs, property taxes and especially inflation? My mom's fond of telling people what a fantabulous investment their first house was, but when you calculate it out over the 43 years they owned it they only "made" a few per cent on the "investment".

Taxes on unimproved residential land are not that much in Texas anyway, and I never held on to a piece of property long enough to be hurt by taxes and I was very selective what I bought to sell or build a spec home on. As for houses I always made money on that end, personal as well as business, being that was my business, (I have stepped away from that for awhile though).
But unless I missing something, inflation factors into everything....right?

[benco57]

Originally Posted by roofeditor

Stupid as this may sound I also set up a retirement fund for my daughter when she was 5. My thinking was that who the heck knows if SS will be alive when she retires and will companies like GE and IBM still pay pensions? She is set now.

Now what the heck to do with 8 houses that have lost 20-30% in value. hey they are all rented and we have a slight positive cash flow. Slight!

Wow! I can barely save for my own retirement........ And you have 8 rent housing that are bringing in a positive cash flow. Not bad buddy!


Hey, I think I found WHO HAS THE MONEY.......

*****IT'S ROOFEDITOR******

[klhansen]

Originally Posted by benco57

Hey, I think I found WHO HAS THE MONEY.......

*****IT'S ROOFEDITOR******

-- and he's probably not going to share with anyone, either.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by benco57

Hey, I think I found WHO HAS THE MONEY.......

*****IT'S ROOFEDITOR******

I don't think this is true, he's divorced.

[benco57]

Originally Posted by checkthisout

I don't this is true, he's divorced.

I don't know, sometime it can be cheaper to divorce... A slow drain can be very expensive in the long run.

[AK_Gandy]

There's a reason divorce is so expensive.


















Because it's worth it!