Stock Market
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Stop orders are a MUST. I have stops on everything except the really ancient stuff I have that is at an incredibly low cost basis (e.g. GE at $2.13 basis paying $1.12 yearly in dividends, and Baby Bells at under $1 -bought AT&T pre-1984 divestiture order). Why would I want to incur a taxable gain? - (un)fortunately I have NO losers to balance against. Poor me!As usual USC is talking out of his USASS!!
Darla, this will go on for some time. It's about fear of foreclosures, secondary market for mortgages is dried up. No on one the shitty loans wrapped in a bow.
this may go on at least till the banks report earnings and investors see how bad it really is/could be.
You can put a trailing stop loss on an investment once it goes up x you can say sell it if it ever goes down a dollar or two. Limits you losing your gain.
I've been taking cash out of the market for about a year. I'm picking up some easy pickin's real estate. I go to closing on 8/31 on a sub2 deal with $1000 assigment fee to the bird dog and $500 closing fees. $1500 out of pocket, monthly PITI is $283, Section 8 rent is $500. ROI ~125% (after maintenance).
Status? No, I do have a need for alone time, privacy, frequent showers and peace.
There is no f'ing way I am moving into a commune, I can tell you that.
evince
Truthmatters
It should have never been offered to people.
A home is the most expensive thing most people will ever own, They were told the market will Make equity happen for you and you will be able to sell it for more than you borrowed in two years and then have a down for another house.
People were seeing the possibility of ownig a house EVER getting out of their reach because of prices.
They took a risk and were reasured of the risk by the people who sold the loans, these loans should not have been allowed to be sold.
You can pretend everyone reads every line of a loan they are signing but that is not true and never will be and eve if they did would they understand the implications without a contract law degree?
To just blame this mess on the loanee is sheer blindness to the real market conditions.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
AssHat, subprime lending, a reaction to allegations of "discrimination against the poor," and threats of Federal action from such luminaries as Chuck Schumer and Henry Waxman is what caused this whole mess.
The lenders started lending to deadbeats and the rest is history.
Now to cure the problem, the first thing the lenders did was stop lending to deadbeats. Simple. It's a parallel to the RTC.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
We need to get confirmation before going back in. Yes, no details from Top.
I also went long OEX puts two weeks ago. Fear (and luck) before going on vacation, no genius involved in this decision.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I agree that many of the loans should not have been issued. I did not blame the individuals alone. I blame both parties in the deal. You do not need a lot of knowledge or common sense to understand what your mortgage payment will be now and what it will be if rates go up (assuming you are looking at variable rate debt, which is the problem within subprime right now).
You also do not need much common sense to understand that if you cannot afford a fixed rate loan, that you are going to be screwed if rates go up.
To just blame this mess on the loanee is sheer blindness to the real market conditions
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
One of the patterns I am seeing is that the unrelated stocks (non-financial / non-housing) being hit are those with poor fundamentals.No, not a semi-panic... this is pretty much a full blown panic.
There are a LOT of stocks and equity positions that are getting crushed for little apparent reason.
If your stock has good fundamentals, then you may want to simply ride out and perhaps even add to the position. Talk with your financial advisor and get their opinion on the particular stock.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Um... everything is pretty much taking a beating right now. Regardless of fundamentals.
evince
Truthmatters
Most of the people who signed these loans were people who did not understand the housing market , they were just smucks trying to buy their first houses.
Ones who never thought they would be able to ow a house and this market looked like a way in. Or ones who thought it was a way to wealth and had seen it happen to people.
I was telling everyone I talked to for years that this market cant last because everything they saw made it look like there was no Top to it.
The loans were not cracked down on because their was money to be had and the economy was pretty much depending on it to keep going.
Its time for the seller to protect the buyer so he can sell to him tomarrow as well as today.
There was a time when that was the case and that is why everyone looks back at the 50s as a great time, the "Sellers" had the 40s fresh in their minds and knew tomarrows sells depended on not raping the customer today.
Since then they Sellers who survive are the ones who screw the customer for all they can and take their cut and leave the problems to the guy who runs the company behind him.
In this atmosphere you have no choice but the regulate to protect the future economy.
I wish we didnt have to but wishes will buy you nothing in any market.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Somewhat, but the beatings are harshest for the poor fundamentals / missed earnings, etc.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Idiot Federal regulations and decisions got us INTO this. We need to realize this and take caution on how we set about to solve the problem, which was not a problem until it was created.
uscitizen
Villified User
Ummm the banking industry was deregulated to a large degree, that is what permitted the subprime issue to happen.
cawacko
Well-known member
they are already building smaller cheaper houses, they have to.
Before the bublle even started the average house was twice the size it was in 1960. This could be far from over. Take the average home price in 2000 plus 3% a year, if we're still way over that watch out.
In some/many places the price of land combined with local laws, regulation and fees jack up the cost of building a home so much that building an "affordable" home is almost impossible.
uscitizen
Villified User
Umm I am speaking of the building, not the associated costs. very few people need a 3000 sq ft home. But they look impressive.
cawacko
Well-known member
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
I wasn't responding to you. I'm speaking about building homes in general. All in costs to a developer can often reach several hundred thousand dollars which makes building any affordable home almost impossible.
uscitizen
Villified User
Depends on where you want to live and what you call affordable.
CA, well yes I can see that.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Ummm, no, the banking industry responded to the pressure from the House Banking Committee by lobbying for a change in the types of loans that were considered conforming, and thus eligible for FNMA backing, pooling, and resale. And so we have more loans to the marginally qualified beginning circa 1999 / 2000.
Deregulated, nope! Change in regs, yep! With government's approval. To deny government's complicity in this idiocy is foolishness and turning a blind eye. The initiator of the chain of events that led us to this point was the House Banking sub-Committee. That's not to say the banks are angels, but we can not simply ignore the inconvenient truth of government's role while turning to them to solve this "problem."
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
Bay Area, NY and L.A. especially. I've worked on developments in all three areas and the fees, expenses, cost of land etc. make 'affordable' a pipe dream.
By affordable I mean a single family home in the $350k to $400k range. I'm sure that number varies in different areas but in CA I believe the medium home is close to $400K.