73 Reds

I just can't understand why any first-time homeowner believes they have a right to the perfect home in the perfect neighborhood. Buy what you can afford, work harder so you can afford more, or live somewhere else that is affordable.

The usual whiners and complainers (not you) extrapolate present events into the indefinite future, just like they always do. They sound like a broken record and assess blame to suit their narrative. Nary a solution, that would require some thought.

Cubs, they don't forget; they ignore. That's all part of the narrative.

Yep. Thank goodness for State borders. The only opinions who counted were those of his constituents. Isn't it ironic that those who knew him best from both sides of the aisle were quick to sing his praises even though they didn't always agree?

Inflation heated up directly because of Covid. It would not have mattered who was President at the time.

If so, isn't the obvious answer to earn more? We can talk about housing supply vs. demand all day long but the fact is useful jobs and degrees will go a long way to resolve that issue for homebuyers. People who are gainfully employed to their capabilities tend to have less problems affording a house. Apologists tend to be from one political party and support many of the same issues that contribute to high housing costs. And there is always the option to move somewhere that is more affordable. Yet there are people who will complain no matter what. Like most things, the longer term solution to high housing prices is high housing prices. But don't tell that to folks who don't understand fundamental economics.

Did he cast any other votes in the last 30 years? Perhaps you'd have preferred his predecessor in the Senate, Strom Thurmond.

Mortgage rates are in line with long term averages and well below when I financed my first, fifth and tenth property. Today's mortgage rates are not the culprit. Its the actual purchase price and cost of insurance, taxes and maintenance.

Its a good business if its the best they can do with the borrowed funds.

Appreciate the response but still don't see how a TRS counterparty is the same as a bank when the counterparty owns the same number of shares as its TRS exposure. If it owns less shares than its exposure that provides leverage but also creates risk. Otherwise, still trying to figure out why a counterparty would settle for a risk-free 3% +/- return.

Could you explain how the counterparty uses leverage in a TRS for us "slow leaners"? I'm still not getting it, Do they have more exposure than the shares they own?

Are you referring to leverage by the counterparty? I thought the counterparty owned an equivalent number of shares as its exposure(?) Sorry for the confusion but I never did understand the precise mechanics.

Got it. Doesn't seem like a very high rate of return considering the counterparty has to own the stock to generate 3% interest plus whatever dividends it may receive.

Please excuse the dumb question but if the counterparty owns an equivalent number of shares as its TRS exposure, how does it make money? Does it collect a "vig" either way?

Maybe he can now afford his child support payments.