For MBA's

[Cancel3]

I think that's a poor investment, regardless of some possible payoff. The odds don't look good to me.

I would think if your logic was sound, some private corporation or conglomerate would take advantage of the situation, but they all think it's a dogshit deal, which why THEY DON'T WANT IT EITHER.

You like longshots with an infinite time horizon, I get it, you live in loony land.

I think houses will always be a good investment. They are rarely a good short-term investment, but thats not why I would invest anyway.

As long as you avoid the sub-prime loans and only sell to people with good credit, you should be fine.

The last I checked, even with a record 8% foreclosure rate, 92% of people with mortgages are paying theirs on time.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I think houses will always be a good investment. They are rarely a good short-term investment, but thats not why I would invest anyway.

Ok. But realize no companies who traditionally make money with houses wants this mess. 700 billion is massive overpayment for whatever will be gained.. It's basically fraud. And you're all for it.

As long as you avoid the sub-prime loans and only sell to people with good credit, you should be fine.

The last I checked, even with a record 8% foreclosure rate, 92% of people with mortgages are paying theirs on time.

Others feel differently, Pollyanna.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The serious downturn in the economy has produced some major bargains in the housing market.

The houses are never going to be worthless. Depending on how long you are willing to hold an asset, you could make a large chunk of change.

If someone got a mortgage and paid for 4 or 5 years, then lost it, the bank would be willing to take considerably less for the house. They have already received 4 or 5 years of payments.

True but that won't mean shit if you can't get the credit to purchase that housing unless you have the cash to pay for it.

 

[Cancel3]

Ok. But realize no companies who traditionally make money with houses wants this mess. 700 billion is massive overpayment for whatever will be gained.. It's basically fraud. And you're all for it.



Others feel differently, Pollyanna.

Where in the hell do you get "And you're all for it."??

Because I see houses as a secure investment? I have railed repeatedly against the bailout. But you post this garbage?

You are a fool.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Where in the hell do you get "And you're all for it."??

Because I see houses as a secure investment? I have railed repeatedly against the bailout. But you post this garbage?

You are a fool.

You make an absurd business case which just so happens to buttress the insanity of the bailout you allege to be against. I'm calling you a liar, sir. A liar, indeed.

 

[Cancel3]

You make an absurd business case which just so happens to buttress the insanity of the bailout you allege to be against. I'm calling you a liar, sir. A liar, indeed.

I am making an absurd business case? How is that absurd? I am basing my case on over 100 years of economic investing. You are basing your claims on a few months of crisis management.

A liar? hardly

I am just not so desperate to win a debate that I will make absurd accusations while offering absolutely no evidence to contradict my opponents argument.

 

[Topspin]

Housing may go up soon enough, but that doesn't mean these pools of shit motgages will be worth more than ten cents on the dollar.

 

[TRGLDTE]

I think that's a poor investment, regardless of some possible payoff. The odds don't look good to me.

I would think if your logic was sound, some private corporation or conglomerate would take advantage of the situation, but they all think it's a dogshit deal, which why THEY DON'T WANT IT EITHER.

You like longshots with an infinite time horizon, I get it, you live in loony land.

Every RE investor I know is loading up on houses. As to conglomerates or big corps not wanting to own RE from the busted mortgages, that's a false idea. Their business model is simply not set up for the management of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of Single Family Residences. It is not the value of the asset, but rather the inability to manage the asset correctly during the holding period needed for the marketable value to rise that is the constraining factor.

 

[TRGLDTE]

Housing may go up soon enough, but that doesn't mean these pools of shit motgages will be worth more than ten cents on the dollar.

Yes, it's like a mutual fund trading at a discount to the Net Asset Value. The supply / demand for the instrument is different than the supply / demand for the underlying asset. The breakup value of the entity is greater than the value as a single unit. Perhaps some smart business man will find a way to buy the large pools and by parsing them into smaller tracts, create a total value more representative of the underlying asset value. Basically, do a 'spin off' or break up of subsections.

In the case of a mutual fund, sell the shares, and by converting to cash, bring the NAV to parity.

 

[Topspin]

you may be tight in the value of kicking out the morons and selling the house.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Yes, it's like a mutual fund trading at a discount to the Net Asset Value. The supply / demand for the instrument is different than the supply / demand for the underlying asset. The breakup value of the entity is greater than the value as a single unit. Perhaps some smart business man will find a way to buy the large pools and by parsing them into smaller tracts, create a total value more representative of the underlying asset value. Basically, do a 'spin off' or break up of subsections.

In the case of a mutual fund, sell the shares, and by converting to cash, bring the NAV to parity.

But none of this bullshit is the case here. 10% on the dollar, like topspin said, sounds about right.

It's not good business to take such flights of fancy. But when I guess when it's other people's money, who really gives a heck, right?

 

[Kamala Trump]

What's the breakup value of the United States Of America?