patrick.net

Bush just signed into law a bailout bill aimed at removing taxes from debt forgiveness relating to foreclosure or refinancing. Let the flood gates open, now there is no incentive for hanging on to a house or any penalty for walking away from it.

What is a 2nd generation illegal? Did their parents go outside of the country for childbirth just so that the kids can remain illegal?

:lol: I was mainly referring to her parent's (likely) status, but yeah, point taken.

Q for all you Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Brits & other nationalities out there: Do children of illegal immigrants get automatic residency/citizenship in your country too?

Q for all you Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Brits & other nationalities out there: Do children of illegal immigrants get automatic residency/citizenship in your country too?

Brits: No. Mother must be settled at the time of birth.

Ha ha, and the latest boomer folly, it turns out that those fine art TV auctions were selling fake paintings. Hope none of you guys paid $3,000 for one of those fake $90,000 Salvador Dalis. God what is it with these people?

Ok, I know the boomers used to ditch economics class because it was teaching evil concepts or you just wanted to smoke pot. In either case, if something is worth $90,000 in a normal market you are not going to just pick it up for $3,000 on a nationally telivised auction. It is just a reocurring theme with these people, it is charged on a credit card, so it is like the money doesn't demand the same care.

Aparantly this fraud was 6 billion dollars a year. Who cares though? It is just debt.

Malcolm, I couldn't believe that Bush actually signed "Don't 1099, Bro" into law, so I had to check the AP feed myself. Maybe I shoud consider a temporary change in career to "short sale specialist". I have to admit it becomes a no brainer for the seller -- at least before it was challenging: jingle mail (ruined credit but no tax consequences) or short sale (keep credit but pay IRS for debt forgiveness). Oh well, I'm sure there's enough people with seconds to make life interesting. Actually this is an area where a savy "short sale specialist" could come in handy: how to divide the debt foregiveness so that the first and second lien holders find it acceptable (get the second to accept pennies on the dollar as they get zip if foreclosed).

And it will become kind of fashionable as well.
Especially if you were being "held hostage" by the bank with an ARM reset and can now rent for 1/3 the price. What's not to like...

Malcolm, I couldn’t believe that Bush actually signed “Don’t 1099, Bro” into law, so I had to check the AP feed myself. Maybe I shoud consider a temporary change in career to “short sale specia1ist”. I have to admit it becomes a no brainer for the seller — at least before it was challenging: jingle mail (ruined credit but no tax consequences) or short sale (keep credit but pay IRS for debt forgiveness). Oh well, I’m sure there’s enough people with seconds to make life interesting. Actually this is an area where a savy “short sale specia1ist” could come in handy: how to divide the debt foregiveness so that the first and second lien holders find it acceptable (get the second to accept pennies on the dollar as they get zip if foreclosed).

And it will become kind of fashionable as well.
Especia1ly if you were being “held hostage” by the bank with an ARM reset and can now rent an equivalent house (on the same block) for 1/3 the price. You come off looking like a genius...

While I have a different strategy, I totally agree that now there is nothing to stop a mass exodus of sellers. On principle I don't believe a non recourse loan should ever carry a tax liability for debt forgiveness but without understanding specifics it seems like this law lets everyone, including the cash out people, walk away. Taking cash out and not paying it back should always be viewed as debt forgiveness, there is absolutely no reason to not tax that income. Evidently in this country we tax the shit out of hard work but larsony is now a tax shelter.

Canada is the only other country than US that recognizes citizenship by birth.

EU plugged the hole years ago, with Ireland being the last. I think Ireland closed the loophole a couple of years ago because I read something about illegal immigrants rushing to Ireland to give birth before the deadline to acquire an EU passport for their kids.

Oz plugged the hole in the 90s. At least one parent has to be a PR in order for the kid to be born as an Aussie.

Canada and us are the only fools standing.

At least one parent has to be a Puerto Rican in order for the kid to be born as an Aussie?

Weird.

IMO they should be citizens. The term natural born citizen only has the criteria of birth in this country. Also, since the constitution is being cited, one of the rights afforded is that no person shall answer for the crimes of another. I haven't seen anyone assert a point based in law or even morally cohesive as to why someone born in a country is not automatically a citizen.

stuckinBA:

about those bloggers having more incite than bankers, investors, economists...

The much deeper problem is nothing new, it's just showing up in what seems like a new place to you (and really, it's not that new of a place. Remember the real estate bubble that popped in 1990? Tech bubble? Enron? Arthur Burns-authored inflation? Different bubbles, same kinds of elite bankers, investors, economists...)

all those elite business schools either dumbed them down or trained them very well in malfeasance, probably it was a little bit of both.

There's someone who posts on here that graduated from Haas who shares a lot of insight, and it's clear from what he shares that he learned that stuff in the school of the Real World. Not Haas.

OO:

I'm really getting sick and tired of being punished for being a citizen by beeing obliged for jury duty in a county where one in four is not a citizen.

I have said so during the jury selection when the defendant was a Mexican, in order to get excused.

Malcolm says: The term natural born citizen only has the criteria of birth in this country. Also, since the constitution is being cited, one of the rights afforded is that no person shall answer for the crimes of another. I haven’t seen anyone assert a point based in law or even morally cohesive as to why someone born in a country is not automatically a citizen.

What about the reverse? An illegal immigrant can effectively have their crime forgiven by birthing a child on U.S. soil. The child is a citizen, and since they are too young to care for themselves, their parent(s) get to stay. Such a low standard for citizenship encourages people to break the law. And they aren't doing it just for the kid's benefit---they are breaking the law for their own benefit, too.

Also, since the constitution is being cited, one of the rights afforded is that no person shall answer for the crimes of another. I haven’t seen anyone assert a point based in law or even morally cohesive as to why someone born in a country is not automatically a citizen.

I'll go along with this argument, provided that:
Said parents don't automatically qualify for legal residency just for "dropping anchor" on U.S. soil. If this means child must be raised by adoptive U.S. parents, or *gasp* parents must return to country of origin and apply for legal residency to be reunited with their children, then so be it. Otherwise, automatic residency-by-proxy (the "anchor baby") becomes just another legal loophole to be exploited.

And what Brand said ;-).

DinOR Says:

> Yeah, I believe he (Buffett) DID say that. I’ll see what I can’t
> dig up. Even though WB sold his long held SoCal beach home
> around the peak, he insisted it was more about fundamentals
> and portfolio management than out of fear of a housing bubble.

I first heard about Warren Buffett and Sam Zell the late 80’s and I’ve been a fan ever since learning a lot from both of them (I think that any one that wants to invest should first read every one of Buffett’s annual reports and before anyone invests in Commercial Real estate they should real Zell’s REIT annual reports).

Buffet bought his wife Susie a place in Pacific Heights back in 1988 for $700K. When she died in July 2004 he waited until the peak of the bubble in October 2005 to sell it for $4.4mm. He hired Mayor Newsom’s Sister’s Mother in Law who also happens to be one of the top agents in SF to sell the place.

While Buffet sold his SF residential property at the absolute peak of the market it was Zell that sold his $36 Billion REIT to Blackstone a year later at the peak of the commercial bubble. It is almost funny now to think that there were people saying the Blackstone outsmarted Zell (at the time I was thinking of the people who said Buffett had lost it when he did not buy any dot com stocks in 2000)…

Brand Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
"What about the reverse? An illegal immigrant can effectively have their crime forgiven by birthing a child on U.S. soil. The child is a citizen, and since they are too young to care for themselves, their parent(s) get to stay. Such a low standard for citizenship encourages people to break the law. And they aren’t doing it just for the kid’s benefit—they are breaking the law for their own benefit, too."

Very true but I am not going to punish an innocent to solve another problem. They are two different issues. The solution I would offer is that the child is a citizen, the parents can choose to give it up for adoption or they can take it back to their country. It should not be a factor in considerating an application for residency, and I would stick to my consistent position that they should be deported and have to apply from outside of the country.

Funny Harm, I was saying just that.

sybrib Says:

> about those bloggers having more incite than bankers,
> investors, economists…
> The much deeper problem is nothing new, it’s just showing
> up in what seems like a new place to you (and really, it’s
> not that new of a place. Remember the real estate bubble
> that popped in 1990? Tech bubble? Enron? Arthur Burns-
> authored inflation? Different bubbles, same kinds of elite
> bankers, investors, economists…)
> all those elite business schools either dumbed them down
> or trained them very well in malfeasance, probably it was
> a little bit of both.

Most guys in business school learn that you can you can make a lot of money taking big risks with other people’s money without much real personal down side even if you lose every penny of the investors money.

I was just talking to a bunch of friends in NY (Investment Bankers) and CT (Hedge Fund Guys) and all say that things are going to get ugly early next year when all the stuff they hid in order pump up the end of year bonuses come to light…

> There’s someone who posts on here that graduated from Haas
> who shares a lot of insight, and it’s clear from what he shares
> that he learned that stuff in the school of the Real World. Not Haas.

I took some business classes as an undergrad but that was a few years before Wally cut the big check for $20mm + and they started calling it Haas. It was 10 years later at the “Junior University” business school that I learned how much money you can make working at a 2/20 shop and taking big risks…

Did anyone see the spot on CBS last week where Canada is opening their doors to Mexican nationals leaving the U.S.. The segment made sure to interview the father with him saying that the utilities are free, the medical is free (pregnant wife sitting next to him, of course), the apartment is free and they get a stipend. The thing was so slanted and strange. It was like our government put it out there to entice our extra illegals to invade Canada.

Interesting, I only qualify to move to Canada because of a master's degree, and they won't give me a free apartment. Oh well.

Yeah. And what about last year when they were deporting people by the bushel. Portugese, Indian, Italians, etc.

WB did comment on the bubble when he sold his beachfront land. I recall this vividly, but he sold before the top in 2004. He was saying that the land was valued at $6M/acre which was completely insane.

Funny that people always think that they can outsmart WB. Recently WB dumped all his PetroChina PTR shares, and realized a 700% return over 4 years. Lots of dumb Chinese investors bought these shares from him saying that a foreigner like WB doesn't understand the "unique" business environment in China. Since he unloaded, the stock price made the final climb of 10% and crashed about 40% from the peak.

I don't necessarily buy when WB buys. But when he unloads, I definitely follow.

You can work in Canada on a 1 year renewable visa if you have an offer from an employer, this is also true for Canadians coming over to the states. A college degree is required and it only works for certain kinds of employment. I don't think Mexican nationals have the same deal.

Also, children can become US or Canadian citizens eventhough their mother is on visitor's visa, exactly how they get a visitor's visa when the mother's are pregnant I'm not so sure.

There was a large deportation of illegal Portugese from Toronto last year or the year before, most of them were construction workers, there were some protests but I don't think the Canadian government are keen on having a lot of illegals in the country, but some say it's because it is very easy to move there legally. When we moved there in the 70's, my parents had to sign an agreement to not draw welfare for 10 years. I think that didn't apply to refugees or boat people at that time.

I first learned to like Warren Buffett due to his many appearances on Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser. His comments always appeared sage to me. Only later did it dawn on me how filthy rich he was.

The 14th Amendment gives a two-part test for automatic citizenship: (1) all persons born or naturalized in the US and (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

For example, if the French ambassador had a kid while serving in the US, that kid is NOT a US citizen. It is arguable that kids of illegal aliens are also not automatically citizens since they fail the second part of the two-part test. It would be interesting for Congress to pass a law making that point and seeing what the Supreme Court would say about it.

But WB does have some bank stock right? I'm wondering wht he knows that we don't?

Back to the original post, it's actually a simpler interpretation. Counterparty risk simply refers to the ability of the other party to fulfill their obligation under the terms. I think a good metaphor here would be a loanshark. He makes loans to deadbeats, gamblers, and drug addicts in exchange for exorbitant interest rates. It's very risky debt and just because you charge 1,000% interest (sounds like great a ROI) doesn't mean that you'll ever see that kind of return. If the terms are so onerous that the counterparty goes broke trying to pay back the note, then it's a poorly structured deal...

cb - 11:53 -- You've outlined well exactly why the vast, vast majority of we Americans are stuck right where we are, we have to love it because we can't leave it.

Lots of dumb Chinese investors bought these shares from him saying that a foreigner like WB doesn’t understand the “unique” business environment in China.

There is no such thing as unique business environment. Human nature is all the same when it comes to greed and fear.

It would be interesting for Congress to pass a law making that point and seeing what the Supreme Court would say about it.

There are several type of illegal aliens, right?

1) Those who entered illegally, without being lawfully admitted at the border or port of entry

2) Those who entered legally and became illegal through status expiration or violation

(1) can be interesting here.

cb Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
"You can work in Canada on a 1 year renewable visa if you have an offer from an employer, this is also true for Canadians coming over to the states. A college degree is required and it only works for certain kinds of employment. I don’t think Mexican nationals have the same deal."

I was referring to permanent residence.

There are lots of rumors about WB holding banking stocks, particularly that of Bear Stearns. That is untrue.

WB made it clear at a seminar (by invitation only) in Canada recently that he was approached by certain IBs for capital but he didn't take up on such opportunities. Because he has such a draw, so it is quite convenient for banking people to spread rumors about him interested in shopping at the fictional "bottom". I think he is way smarter than that.

Incidentally, he commented at the same seminar that he thinks Canadian oil sand will head for higher values in the next few years, which is consistent with his major stake in BNI and a couple of undisclosed railways.

Oh well, we are about to head into recession and therefore much lower birth rate. Perhaps we do need illegal aliens to drop babies so that my generation can retire :-)

I am amazed at the proliferation of fertility clinics in the BA, and they are not covered by medical insurance. I am if these clinics will feel the chill of recession before other "discretionary" consumer spending. I have met a couple of middle class double-income wage slaves who are going to these clinics using home equity. I think the birth rate of this country is about to take a dive.

"he waited until the peak of the bubble in October 2005 to sell it $4.4 mm."

FAB, I was unaware of that transaction but it certainly sounds like you were intimate with it? I'm sure Warren owns a LOT of things I'm unaware of.

The one I was referring to was:

www.nypost.com/seven/11052006/business/buffet_is_way_wrong_at_home_business_suzanne_mcgee.htm

I think it's just grand Mr. Manchester paid $3.5 mil. in Nov. of 2006 and was STILL able to turn a profit (after spending "several" hundred thousand in improvements). Ahem, care to define "several" Richard?

The authwhore completely and conveniently glosses over the fact that WB's profit (more than triple) in 9 years was done on a much lower risk-to-reward ratio and was treated as a long term gain! While flipper boy was able to eke out a profit, it was all taxed at the higher rate and if I might add, at much greater risk! Having $50 mil. in client assets might impress in OR but in Laguna Beach, sorry, that's a piker.

Please try this OC Register link. It actually is a little more sexed up anyway.

www.ocregister.com/ocregister/money/housing/article_719509.php

OO - yes it's a Ponzi scheme, and if double-income wage-slaves aren't going to drop plenty of kids, then we have to import people to do the sexual acts and procreation Americans won't do!

So, unless the US turns Mormon or keeps the flow of fertile illegals flowing, you, sir, will not be able to retire.

A tale of two markets:
It's a similar story in the East Bay, where it would take about 2.25 months to sell all the homes now for sale in the Oakland hills but 15.7 months to churn through the inventory in Hayward, based on sales averages this year and multiple listing service data.

Would as in, Would based on sales this time last year. Or Should? Could?