weekender

finally he got the response he was looking for. it will be worth it to him having listened to all the adult comments about personal responsibility. he must be so happy. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You should get a loan from one of them, then. Or HSBC. The issue isn't the terms of the lending, it's an issue of down right theavery. $3k for paper work...really! How can any one defend that? I know I can't. my wife is a lawyer and charges $450 an hour for paperwork. she isnt a thief because she doesnt force anyone to do anything. neither does the bank. its a large contract that must be accurate and that cost money. of course, you dont care if it makes sense. you just dont like it so its wrong. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>>Look here is how banking works, I entrust that you won't screw me and that I won't screw you. It's a nice agreement that worked for many years! Thats not how it works. you just decided to make up your own definition to suit you. its an agreement between two adults made in the open. You asked them for money. money you did not have. you agreed to the terms. thats it, its not about screwing anyone. its math, math has no emotion. your animosity is misdirected but its obvious your incapable of accepting any responsibility. life must be very hard for you, having to blame others for your own short comings. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>>I wonder in the grand scheme of things, where in hells cavern do bankers and finance professionals reside? Actually they dont live in caves or any kind of hell. Most live in very nice homes in nice areas of the state. That is when they are not at their shore house or on vacation in Europe. They also have multiple rigs becaue they are actually cheaper than most of their wife's purses. Of course they pay packers so they can jump more and give no regard to ticket prices. After all, jump tickets are nothing compared to how much boat fuel cost for a day. Oh and they put more than 20% down on all three of their properties so they would never be in your situation. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

As discussed over and over again you bought a house you could not afford and now you blame the people who loaned you the money. If you cannot afford to put any money down you cannot afford the property. Now you are asking for another loan and are mad at them for their terms. Ok, so the bankers are willing to loan you money and you dont want to pay their fees, then don't. Pay cash. You can't of course but thats not the bankers fault. its their money, their terms. You agreed on the terms. it is no ones fault but your own. you have alot of misdirected animosity. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you can be a yuppie and own that car but you must have some hippie in you. alot of young urban professionals find the green movement quite nerdy and uncool. everyone i know that owns a Prius is a school teacher not a banker. they prefer BMW's and Benz's. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Well, I don't see that as a good thing. I'd like to be able to go to a different country and not be snubbed simply because I'm an American. I'd like to be able to feel somewhat safe as opposed to being a potential target for hate and having to look over my shoulder. I'd like to there and not have to pretend I'm a Brit. So, on a personal basis, I care. On a national basis, meh, we get what we deserve and have to live with it, eh? Thank you, U.S. politicos. my experience is the complete opposite. ive been fortunate enough to travel abroad regularly since childhood. ive found that people love Americans. typically, we have money and readily spend it. I've been to countries that conventional wisdom states hate us. French speaking, Islamic and full blown commie countries. Almost always treated as a prince. Who are you so afraid of? looking over your shoulder, pretending to be British? I find people in shops and hotels are way nicer to Americans than Brit tourist because we tend to buy things and tip. Not at all saying your wrong or haven't been snubbed but cannot relate at all. my experience is the complete opposite. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Kind of like the bankers who made huge $(multi-million) bonuses while their banks were being bailed out by the Federal Govt. The banks have mostly paid it back with interest. also, they are profitable again. everyone wins. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

once the mortgages are packaged as a derivative securities they trade by contracts and its a net trade. in laymans terms it means that the two parties review each individual derivative as opposed to the security being listed on an exchange. they agree on price and its traded on that net price. Ideally the seller prices it for more than he paid but its not for certain. loses are taken. The cost is past on to the consumer but not the person Shah thinks. in this case the consumer is the institutional investor who buys the derivative. this has nothing to do with the little man, retail customer. It has morphed into a different animal once securitized. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

OK cool I see what you mean, verly logical. That theory works accept for one problem; the facts. Was your life better under Clinton or Bush? does anyone remember the approval rating for Bush in his last months, the lowest ever of any US president. reread my post and explain to me how my theory doesnt work? i choose my wording to avoid a post like yours. i am giving a theory on what would motivate someone to vote republican. facts have nothing to do with it. they believe democrates are anti business so vote republican. its a very common held belief. right or wrong its their motivation. facts have nothing to do with it, so please leave them, out. hah "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>But what are the options? The banks made HUGE mistakes with respect to the mortgages and were bailed out by public funds. Yes many paid back those funds. But let's face it a good many of them would not be around if they had not received such an injection of funds to undo what they had done. >Why can't such a federal option exist for the citizens of this country? Give those that are worthy access to zero interest loans to pay down their differential to be able to refinance and free up capital? the banks were bailed out because our leaders felt our society would be worse off if they let them fail. Not because people love banks or banker or rich people. keep in mind the tarp was paid back. If you get a refi, would you pay the bank back for their losses? We both know the answer. So your not getting a bailout. Face it, society has put a greater value on our banking institutions then on any one individual. Like it or not, it is what it is. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

removing religion, which is a no brainer why they would vote for republicans, i have a pretty simple theory. they work for a private company and would like to keep their job and/or benefits. Right or wrong, they believe the democratic party is bad for private business. Not really voting against their best interest if their best interest is keeping a roof over their head. My post is about why someone would vote one way. I'm not saying they are right. its a comment on their motivations. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>How do you free that quantity of capital? Yes you would have to ensure that those who's capital was freed up were of good credit standing and would spend it or us it to pay down debt...but how to free that capital? You are proposing that the banks take a loss on a property to free up capital for consumers. They are in the business of making loans to multiple people and make decisions based on this not individual properties. They are hesitant to change terms after the fact because it could have a dramatic change to the business climate for them. Suddenly people would no longer feel obligated to honor their end of the contract. defaults would increase greatly damaging the banks source of revenues and profitability. IMO, your proposal is a bad idea for banks and society in general. >Yeah you did well, but many did not. And not all bought homes they could not afford. And by afford I'm indicating making payments, not slapping down $60K+. I am of the opinion that you cannot afford the home properly if you cannot afford a decent down payment, insulating yourself from a downturn in value. Others here agree with me, as would most financial advisors. You seem to feel my comments are an attack but just look at the math, remove emotion. You'll see what i'm saying is quite reasonable. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

please. you dont like what people are saying so they are picking a fight? Nothing anyone posted is a personal attack or even rude. Math is funny, its not emotional. It is totally neutral. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>1) STFU with the personal attacks, not only is it rude but rather childish. Who has $60k to throw at a home from day 1? Who sounds childish? read our post vs yours. You do not like what someone says, fine. it does not make them wrong or rude or childish. Stop asking for a serious discussion. You do not want a discussion that involves anything that considers your own responsibility in your predicament. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>I'm stuck with one loan at 6.25% and another at 8.7% (I utilized an 80/20 loan to procure my condo for I did not have $60k cash on hand as called for). You are stuck because you bought a home that you could not afford properly. the way you structured this purchase proves it. learn from your mistake. Next time rent till you can come up with enough equity to absorb a loss in value. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Sorry, but that's short-sighted and wrong. If a company's business plan includes the use of employed labor, then the dynamics of the relationship between the economic power of the employer and the collective power of the workers must be planned-for prudently, in advance. Failure to do so is a lack of due diligence which nature would not tolerate if certain state governments did not artificially tip the natural balance by enacting anti-union legislation. Ok, I don't dissagree that employers must plan for labor. That wasn't my point. Sorry it wasn't clear. I believe if you read all of my comments you will see im making a rather simple point about profits and how they belong soley to the owner. Also, that employee pay should be based on their value not the owners profit. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the company exist for the owners not to create jobs >That makes no sense. I think you read it wrong. I am saying the company exist for the owners profit. It does not exist so he can create jobs for people. that is a benefit for others but not the companies purpose or why it was created. its only purpose is profit, not jobs. does that make sense? I'm not asking if you agree. i'm asking if its worded in a way you understand. I might not have been clear in the one sentence you quoted. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The idea of a company is created by one or more investors (owners, venture capitalists.) A company can only exist if it has employees. Remove the employee from the equation and the company remains only as an idea. People (employees) are needed to bring forth a concept into reality. Products do not materialize out of thin air. Do you own a company? Fire all of your employees and do not replace them. I am 100% positive that your company will cease to exist. ok, a company needs employees is a valid point, however, that is not what was originally stated. Nor do i believe was the intent. People do not like to think they are less important but they are. The company exist because of and for the owners. Not the employees. they are replacable at the owners will, not the other way around. my point still stands. the company exist for the owners not to create jobs. Employee pay has nothing to do with owner profit. to answer your question, no i do not own a business. my wife does, she pays her employees based on their value. not her profit. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

A company exist because of the employees. The vast number of jobs, here in SW Missouri, are non-union. Average pay is $8.00 per hour. Most employees pay for their "benefits." Most of the jobs work 39 hour weeks, making them part time. This part of the state is 80% republican. An extremely high number of people, in this area, collect government benefits, due to low wage jobs. Not so in areas of the state where unions thrive and people earn a wage that allows them to stay off of the government dole. Those areas are overwhelmingly democrat and in larger cities, such as St. Louis. Now, I do agree that some locals demand more than what a small company can afford. That needs to stop. They need to meet in the middle and shake hands as the company rises and falters. After all, it is management and employees that make a company. the company exist because someone, the owner/investors, created it. the rest of your comments i wont argue. Union people make more money than non union. usually for sure. not my point. reread my post and you will see that no where did i imply otherwise. the company exist for the owners to profit. not to supply jobs. their profits are theirs and not the employees. should not be a factor in someones pay. start your own company and you can set your own pay based on profits. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

everyone is paid what their worth. most people feel they are underpayed but the sad truth is if they were, they could demand more. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm with you. the top and bottom lines on the wireline biz is down yr over yr. so that division should be cut accordingly I dont get how the companies revenues matter, though. The purpose of the company is to make money for the owners/shareholders. it doesnt exist for the employees. Your pay has nothing to do with earnings or revenues. Employees are not entitled to the profits unless they are also the owner. Your payed whatever the owner wants to pay you. dont like it quit or start your own company and then you can make all the demands you want. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i have heard that some tv producers have sniffed around DZ's and even pitched the idea to their respective network. It seemed like a slamduck to me. if people would watch 20 shows about hair salons who wouldnt watch this? In this case, i heard it didnt go anywhere. the producer's didnt think a DZ could fit into the formula of todays shows. conflict exposed, time pressure applied and conflict resolved in the last minutes. I still think that it would work but im not a tv producer nor want to front my own money to prove my point. I'm still convinced that some independent producer, with good salesmanship, could get this done. In this case, the producers were gainfully employed by a major network and where not willing to really fight their bosses over it. pitched idea, got a no and went back to work. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

here is the difference as i know it. companies are expected to have independent auditors. These financials are the ones filed with the SEC. People use those to rate the company. The rating is based on this and if its wrong the company, like Anderson, takes the hit. NOT the rater. Thats equities. as ive stated, i dont know how it works with these securities. I'm willing to bet its the same though. i see no reason it would be different. unfortunatly, imo, to many people put their trust in a rating agencies without understanding what they do. They are not detective agencies. they use public information and make an opinion. THAT is why a good sellside analyst is loved. they do the detective work and are payed well for it. an S&P analyst makes six figures while a sellside analyst can make millions. sell side analyst is what your calling a stock analyst. think Abbie Cohen at GS. They do the detective work. Not S&P. seperate and NOT equal. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i dont know. you very well could be right. The SEC mandates that financials must be reported publicly in equities. These were derivative products and unregulated so what was the ratings agencies responsibility? It might have been similiar, which sounds normal to me. in that case they arent going to be held responsible. like it or not. In equities if the financials are wrong the rater is not held responsible. That is why many professionals dont pay attention to ratings unless it suits them well for marketing. Otherwise, they are often taken with a grain of salt. afterall, they are based only on the information given and could easily be wrong. In this case many specifically used the rating to market them to clients. I have no idea who knew what and when but if i had to guess, those are the ones who will be found guilty. somewhere out there is an email from a principal to a salesmen. in it they cleary state they dont believe the rating but want to makes sales anyway. IMO, those are the guys who will go down. the salesmen who knew they were selling a bad product. not the rater, not the PM and not the trader. just my guess "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante