FortWayne's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 9396 - 9435 of 9,435     Last »

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Jun 11, 2:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote

calculator for walking away. a lot of people i know broke the strangle grip of an expensive loan and walked away, they felt so much better about their life after. its just too stressful and often financially difficult when once life is owned by a bank who can take a home at any point of default.

At my wifes company there is outsourcing starting, so family income may drop in half, my job isn't guaranteed either. the loving and caring bank isn't going to give me a second if i cant pay. My suggestion is that if it financially makes sense to walk away... stop paying rent and live there for a year until it forecloses. And don't buy another house until one income can comfortably afford it. In California you are not responsible for taxes for walking away, at least until 2012.

On another note our neighbor has not made a payment for 2 years on his now foreclosed house, almost saved his downpayment back by living in a foreclosed house.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 22, 6:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Some of you guys talking about having the lease be negated when foreclosed.

That would be a terrible idea for business and create a lot of fraud. Here is how.
1) Make tons of contracts, which you cannot fulfill while collecting huge sums of money.
2) Foreclose the property or sell it off to a "business partner" breaking all legal obligations on your part.
3) Repeat the same step back and forth as many times as your heart desires while making money and defrauding the renters or investors (whoever suckered into the deal).

That is why lease contracts should be honored even after foreclosure. Can't be throwing people onto the street enmasse just because banking cartell has defrauded this nation.

P.S. Thanks for the article Patrick.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 24, 7:01am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Average income in our area is 60 to 70,000 per household. Houses are floating around 399,000 or 499,000.

499,000 / 70,000 = 7.1
399,000 / 70,000 = 5.7

Still a bubble since its above 3.0

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 29, 12:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

This is just an attempt at bullying. They don't have case, a very frivolous attempt while at it too.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 30, 3:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

When average household income will be approximately 3x the cost of the house....
(for example: if average family makes 50,000 a year, houses in area would have to be no more than 150,000).

Can't give you an exact date, but all real estate is local.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Nov 30, 3:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

To me it sounds like you guys are stuck in a very small condo paying a crippling amount of money for it since it was bought at the height of the real estate bubble.

My advice is talk to a lawyer, there are always walk away conditions in a contract so you may be able to just walk away handing the property back to the bank. That's what my aunt did, in her case it was a wise financial move.

I would not talk to the bank, because they have all the incentive to keep you paying and not walking away.
If you can rent 1bd for less than what you are paying for it now, walk away and save for a down payment.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 1, 3:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        


In every contract, especially like this. There is a walking away condition, usually something along the lines of you simply handing the keys over to the bank. If it makes financial sense to you, do not hesitate.

It's your life, you have to make the choices that make your life better.

The whole notion of "walking away from the contract being unethical" is based on total bull****. In business I have seen companies walk away from contracts left and right if the terms do not satisfy them. We just recently had a company break the contract because they weren't making enough money on the deal. It's a common and standard practice in the business world. (This is capitalism)

Banks won't look out for you unless it makes them money, so treat them just the way they treat you. A temporary affair that will only last as long as you get something from the deal. If shoe is the other way around they would take your house in a heartbeat and throw you onto the street.

Hope this helps man.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 1, 6:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Actually the news have been very interesting from WikiLeaks in my opinion.

For example a middle eastern leader asking US to blow up Iran, talk about playing politics. Than we get the information that that same leader is also selling weapons to terrorists to fight against us. Thats huge.

Looking forward to BofA news as well.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 1, 6:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

"you can have 2 people making the mean wage($60k+$60k=$120k); or one person making a high wage(at $120k) to afford a $600k mortgage. although they’ll be paying 50% of their net take home for the mortgage+taxes."

That actually would not be affordable. The formula is Income x 3. Not income x 5. So yes, there is quite a long way down still.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 1, 8:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

can get to it now

Must be hosted elsewhere.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 2, 5:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

I dearly love those WikiLeaks guys, though I think they have gone too far. I’m just trying to free us from the Realtor(R) cartel and debt-slavery. Julian Assange is trying to free us from elite monopolization of power in general.
The accusation that the founder of Wikileaks just happens to also be a rapist is not credible. It really looks like some powerful people are out to get him at any cost.
Please tell me if the BoA data gets published. I’d love to be able to tell other people where it is.

Much agreed Patrick.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 3, 2:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

It would be funny, if it wasn't so close to reality of todays US politics.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 3, 7:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

European banks were given bailouts because our Fed was frightened by the idea of foreign banks dumping the "toxic assets" which they would have to in order to stay afloat. Such action would further devalua and crush this recent fake bubble of prosperity making these same fictitious "toxic assets" held by our banks even more worthless.

It was more in line of bailing out existing US banks by keeping their assets priced higher. This is why they do housing tax credits, as long as prices can be artificially inflated... bank assets will stay positive. Which is probably a good reason for many folks to stay out of the housing market for next few years, until the Fed stops artificial and unsustainable subsidies. Eventually government will pull the support plug when it will no longer be necessary.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 3, 7:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Read quite a few. Most stuff is outright trivial. But some is just explosive.

For example how we sell weapons to Abdullah (the Saudi King), who resells them to Taliban who our army has to fight... turning this into never ending vicious cycle of death. How our administration is squashing all the possible talks with Taliban leaders. There is also the fact that by taking out Iraq leader we have made middle east less safe, more prone to new dictatorship due to power vacuum. There are facts that our military has by "error" killed many civilians and tried to cover it up.

A lot of that was sort of understood and known, but never publicly exposed to an average citizen.
It's exact opposite of what the government has been telling us about.

Here is the video of our military taking out civilians. It is painful to watch. - this is wikilinks website dedicated to that one incident.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 4, 10:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Here is a short version of house buying in 3 steps:

- from county clerk get a list of foreclosures [houses in default, and date of auction - its public record]
- research which property you like.
- show up at the public auction and bid.

This is big business apparently.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 5, 12:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Kevin says

The “American dream” is “sudden riches”? Since fucking when?
Inheriting your wealth was always a European thing, soundly rejected by Americans (except, of course, for the anti-inheritance tax people)

Very true, American dream was never about inheriting wealth or about buying a house and being an instant millionnaire.

It was about starting your business, working hard, and succeeding if your business is right. America is the land of the free, for a long time it was the only country where people were free to start a business without needing to know someone rich.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 5, 12:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Thats how I see this too, and I don't like it at all. This is just going too far. Some realtors are threatening Patrick with a lawsuit, government is blacklisting Assange; and it's all over freedom of press that is inconvenient.

They can't take away our rights. WikiLeaks serious or not, became a matter of the principle for me.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 12:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

The problem with socialism is that it’s mostly socialism for the very rich.
Why do we keep taxing the common people to bail out failed bankers?
Why do the very rich pay only 15% income tax on the interest and dividends they skim off the work of others, while the actual workers pay 28% on honest labor?

Thats how too often socialism works. Soviet Union wasn't wildly different. Perhaps word "rich" isn't the right one though.

A better word might be, "well connected" and runs the government. Soviet Union had the same thing. There money didn't matter, since paper currency was meaningless anyway... it was all in who you are connected with at government level.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 12:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Nomograph says

Why do we keep taxing the common people to bail out failed bankers?

Unfortunately, it’s because people need banks. If the banking system failed, it’s unlikely your website would even be here.

Most small banks were closed off and sold at firesale prices to the banks that were bailed out. So we essentially gave large institutions money to survive and gobble up smaller failing banks.
Bailouts were not necessary, in fact our lives would have been fine without Goldman Sachs being there. If you note, bail outs were very selective.
They didn't bail out GS competitors such as LB or BS...

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 12:42am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

In this industry, if you remove artificial government subsidy prices go down to what people afford.

Current interest rate subsidy like this just forces people to be priced out. It's like inflation, if you give everyone $50 to buy pencils, prices will go up by $50 on pencils because prices are a function of afford ability.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 12:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

wouldn't make sense. people this year aren't making more than last year.

besides pension system is about to crash, unemployment might run out.... if people have less money prices can't go up.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 3:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Here is my best advice for you:

Do the simple formula of income x 3. Outside of that you will end up overextending your finances. I assume you don't want to end up like so many others... paying huge mortgage for 5 or 10 years and than lose it to a foreclosure because of an unfortunate event which come too often in this nation? (By unfortunate I'm referring to extended time of unemployment, medical bills, car accident, cyclical economics, some mortgage fraud, etc...)

Also aim for a 15 year loan you can afford comfortably, not 30. At certain age, incomes drop off or stagnate, and you don't want to get stuck relying on government... their help is VERY selective at times.

Very importantly don't put everything into down payment, make sure you have enough left in savings to support your house for at least 6 month to a year with no income if necessary. And absolutely negotiate all the closing costs, as they don't really need to exist. Price any repairs you have to do for the house into the cost (and demand price reduction if necessary).

Thats my best advise.

(Also if you do get bonuses, do not count those into income formula). I remember during the tech bubble one of our employees got a very expensive house at that time, because her salary was around 40,000 but bonuses were 60,000. Once her job ended she lost her house, as her income went to half and she could no longer pay for it.

Hope this helps.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 5:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

iwog says

QE doesn’t require paper money. The actual money released is a result from the fed buying Treasury bills instead of other people who might have purchased those same treasury bills if the fed didn’t bid up the price so high.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 7:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Doesn’t a homeowner have every right to plant trees on their property even if it blocks their neighbor’s view?

Absolutely they have every right, YES.

As long as it's legal I don't care (even if it brings property value down). Not to mention "Value" is a fungible term here. To one person value is having view of a city, to another view of a tree.

This is a very frivolous lawsuit. Case will get dismissed, otherwise everyone can sue bank of America for blocking sunlight in center of LA. It's a very tall building blocking sunlight for several blocks in Los Angeles...

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 7:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote        

It is a funny ad. There are tons of these falling apart old houses that are still listed for ballooned prices actually, all over the country.

Probably in a year or two garbage inventory will clear out and normal houses will come up at lower prices as well. We live in the valley, most houses here are so old and beat up that they'll probably fall apart like a deck of cards if the wind blows hard enough one day.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 6, 1:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

I'm sure you have seen me support WikiLeaks so you'll probably know where I'm going with this. I believe the person complaining about the WL support is simply wrong or has no concept of history.

We had the same uproar by the administration during Watergate Scandal when Nixon administration tried to put a clam on it. There was another one during Ellsberg Pentagon papers leak. History is repeating itself.

The New York Times, Guardian, and others are all running Wikileaks material. They all shared the same editorial judgement that this material must be published in public interest.

Yet the censorship attempts from the US Government, especially Senator Joe Lieberman and others does not detract from their troubling nature. The nature that these old crooks will do whatever it takes to silence whistle-blowers that will shine the light on the corruption in our upper echelons of government.

To me it appears that they have a lot of lies to cover up, a lot of lies to the people. And I am not ok with their attempts to silence freedom of press or speech out of self preservation. It is our rights, and they cannot have them. It is the right of free press to rock the boat, and WikiLeaks staff is completely right in their actions.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 4:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Government prints money [either physically or electronically], it isn't backed by anything tangible. More money in the system = inflation, less = deflation. So essentially government owns everything we own because it controls it's underlying value.

The Fed chairman believes that we have to have constant low inflation as he mentioned on 60 minutes recently. He completely abhores the idea of having deflation. However, there is a huge problem here. The way the inflation is measured excludes practically everything we all use and live off. It doesn't include major items such as gas or food and some other items less common.

Therefore the real inflation out there is much higher for an average American than it is for someone who is so well off they don't notice prices. I am paying a lot more for gasoline than I used to, more for food, more for cable, more for cell phone (taxes went up), more for clothing, etc... yet Fed thinks inflation is non existant.

Fed is very wrong in my opinion, prices have to come down. Otherwise we are suffocating the middle class which gets to pay full price for inflation without extra income to absorb it.

For starters they should include EVERYTHING into the inflation index, so we can calculate the true inflation index. Not fictitious index they use because politically it looks very nice.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 4:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

American real estate seems kind of petty and overpriced now that I think more about it. Just a huge liability for which tons of suckers are willing to sacrifice 30 years of their life.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 4:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

I think WL is doing a right thing. They provide American citizens with information about what our government is doing. Secrets that are kept from us, that should not be. And I praise such transparency... although i wish it came from the government not from the leaked sources.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 8:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Vicente says

ChrisV says

Government prints money [either physically or electronically], it isn’t backed by anything tangible. More money in the system = inflation, less = deflation. So essentially government owns everything we own because it controls it’s underlying value.

Inaccurate on several fronts. Firstly most “money creation” comes from banks, not from government. Secondly inflation is also driven by the “velocity of money” not just it’s quantity. Money under a mattress or on the balance sheet of a cash-rich corporation isn’t inflationary. Money circulating from your employer to you, then from you to neighborhood shop, then from that shopkeeper to suppliers, that is money in motion. Even with a static “quantity” of money if you increase velocity it’s inflationary.

Yes, what I'm referring to is money supply. If more money is there, it will be used and it will be inflation. I know what you are saying, if its not used it's same as it's not there. However, if out of pure circumstance it is sitting under the corporate mattress or you are not seeing it being used... its only a matter of time before it will be in circulation. Putting more money into the system like that is an equivalent of setting up a financial time bomb.

There is a very important factor to note. This can [and will] create huge asset bubbles which aren't seen immediately. For example earlier we had an asset bubble in housing, there were other bubbles before that... that did come from easy money policy. Depending on a sector where easy money will concentrate bubbles will occur.

New game on wall street is shorting the dollar.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 9:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Any kind of investment is a risk, and it is not considered wise to risk safety nets. So I would not recommend you do anything with it, keep it in savings.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 7, 1:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

But if recent reports are true… an ultimatum of “arrest me for [non-secret divulging charges] and I’ll leak even more….” this speaks more of ego and self-importance than any mission of truth. Besides if it were really only about getting the “truth” out there, why not release all files at once, not in piece-mail fashion, as was initially done.

You have to understand things from both sides. When leaks were released there were politicians out there calling to have him assassinated. Considering the history and the fact that changes of such are pretty high, he is stepping on some very powerful people... this is just insurance.

He would be stupid if he didn't do it. I would have done the same. That is what insurance is for. In business we also call this hedging.

P.S. Cancelled my paypal account too, I know it won't be a big deal to them... they won't notice it. But to me it's a matter of the principle.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 8, 12:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

iwog says

Rents are not going to fall $300 in 6 months. If you wait until summer, odds are you’ll be paying more rent and not less.
There’s an old saying in the landlord business: “Rents never go down”
While it’s not strictly true all of the time, understand that during the worst real estate crash in history rents MIGHT Have fallen 10% in some select places. In most places they didn’t fall at all. In my neck of the woods, I raised rents 5% this year on homes I bought in 2008 and 2009.
Your best bet is to rent what you like now and don’t worry about the future. If you can afford to buy, better still.

Typically rents do not go down. (I don't know about Bay Area). In area where we live they have been going down. It's the valley (Reseda, Tarzana, Encino, Woodland Hills), here rents for 1bd and 2bd have gone up during bubble to as high as 1800 and 2000 (respectively)... and have been coming down a lot since the bubble burst since most people don't have the income to support that.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 8, 12:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Trade deficit and national debt is too high, and both have to be resolved with probably tariffs and cuts. But this is a nation where almost noone wants cuts or want to make less money. They'll just kick the can down the road and hope to not be present when it all crashes down (a mistake Bush made when he stuck around long enough to see mistakes of his administration materialize)

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 8, 1:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

If I were you I wouldn't rush into any housing programs. The longer you wait in this market the better your financials will most likely be.

I could be wrong of course. But the way I see it...
1) Usually people buy houses in their late 20's early 30's or so. But when entire generation of folks has been crashed on by housing bubble they no longer can get into such a market.
2) New generation graduating with an insane educational loan debt - they aren't likely to be going into housing market with debt either.
It all adds up to free market economics of housing going down. Unless of course our government will find another creative way to redistribute wealth and create another bubble again.

Wait a few years, market will make more sense, 30 year loans will go away since those won't work for anyone anymore. New standard will most likely be 15. Prices will probably be more reasonable as well. California for example is still a bubble.

Hope this helps.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 8, 1:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

That's not a good question, because question implies housing is an "investment" that has to go up. However it is not an investment, it is just a liability/convenience... whatever you call it... which also costs A LOT to maintain and support with insurance/taxes.

Housing prices aren't fixed as in "worth something", it's what a buyer is willing to pay for it. Essentially I can't give you an answer, because one simply does not exist.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 8, 2:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

The government for a while has not really represented interest of the nation as a whole. It has been randomly representing random special interests. Which should explain the chaos and double standard in the system.

Selected corporations will get bailed out, selected corporations can pay almost no taxes and write them all off overseas. Selective corporations can be permanently contracted by government, selective corporations are above regulation and above the law. We also have unions, corruption of which I won't go into (too much to write).

Than we have government programs that do exact opposite of helping, for example housing programs artificially drive up housing prices. Same goes for education, where government started giving away billions creating inflation in that sector.

Very disappointing time.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 8, 2:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

I remember when I worked as a programmer in Merchant Services. The amount of fees and charges is staggering.

What irked me always was the amount of legal anti competition policies that were allowed. Credit card companies could punish a merchant financially if they use competition. That wasn't cool.

FortWayne   ignore (0)   2010 Dec 9, 12:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

That would be incredibly unlikely.