ERICOPOLY

I believe when one gets into renting luxury homes, the prices no longer make any economic sense for the "investor", so just forget about cap rates. Plus, the tenant doesn't even need to pay for any of the gardening (the landlord can't afford to have the landscaping neglected). This one rents for only 2.5% of the asking selling price (granted, an extreme example). Throw in 1% property tax and the "investor" has only 1.5% yield left before expenses: For Sale: http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/730-Picacho-Ln_Santa-Barbara_CA_93108_M13138-12656 For Rent: http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/730-Picacho-Ln_Montecito_CA_93108_M24779-74131?rental=1&row=3

How do you calculate the net rental yield? Is this the yield after paying the mortgage? Thanks Vinod I'm figuring if he had no mortgage -- he has my rent checks and he has to pay for property tax and other things. The remainder of cash he has left at the end of the year after expenses, I'm guessing is about 3%. That's 3% of what I think the property is worth, but my valuation estimate is about 77% of the tax assessed value appraisal. If the tax assessor is more accurate then it's only a 2.8% yield. I am scratching my head on how this could be an attractive investment or is there is a non economic reason for this investment? Vinod Owner bought the house in 2007 for 2.2m, sunk "about a million" into upgrades/renovations, and is holding onto it until he can get his money back out. He moved into a lower cost home after having some health deterioration and needing a care giver. You should see some of the homes for rent in Montecito, it's hysterical. www.realtor.com

How do you calculate the net rental yield? Is this the yield after paying the mortgage? Thanks Vinod I'm figuring if he had no mortgage -- he has my rent checks and he has to pay for property tax and other things. The remainder of cash he has left at the end of the year after expenses, I'm guessing is about 3%. That's 3% of what I think the property is worth, but my valuation estimate is about 77% of the tax assessed value appraisal. If the tax assessor is more accurate then it's only a 2.8% yield.

I wonder if China has any hope given that it is 60-70% agnostic/atheistic (at least that's what Wikipedia says).

It matters where I stand on the issue because I am the one labeling it as a superstition. Were I to take a different stance on the matter, it may cease to be a superstition. Concrete evidence, such as if God speaks to me directly, would make me argue vehemently that it's a reality. Of course, when do you know for sure when you are talking to God or just crazy? At any rate, I believe this is why I find it to be superstition but the people who purport to have the ear of God disagree. From Encyclopedia Brittanica's definition of superstition once again: belief, half-belief, or practice for which there appears to be no rational substance. Those who use the term imply that they have certain knowledge or superior evidence for their own scientific, philosophical, or religious convictions. An ambiguous word, it probably cannot be used except subjectively. With this qualification in mind, superstitions may be classified roughly as religious, cultural, and personal

Try Spinoza instead. Since all the basic tenets of Langans 'theory' were stolen from there, why not go to the main source. I'll read more. Have you guys looked into Ian Stevenson's work at all? By the way, have you personally read his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe? No, I couldn't really be bothered. Firstly, all of the warnings signs are blinking when it comes to Langan. He seems more of a self-promoter than a serious thinker. His wordings seem to be far too obfuscating to be a mere coincident - doesn't pass the smell test. Secondly, he presupposes the biblical God in his theory, which sets up the whole thing to be circular reasoning. The rest seems, like I said, to be pretty much lifted from the 17th century, albeit from brilliant sources. Couple this with the fact that no real philosophers or any oher kind of intellectuals have bothered with his ideas and I call bullshit. And no, that Malcolm "Igon value" Gladwell has another explanation for Langan's obscurity doesn't really bother me. Don't you think it'd be wise to read before you give such definitive opinions? Here is a personal story and just another reason I think things are possible. A friend of mine has a cousin. He was sitting in a restaurant and a lady, he did not know, came up to him and ask if she could sit. She said that God told her to give him a message. I think it was something like "you have the power of a tiger within you" or something. Four days later he was diagnosed with cancer. Now, we could assume that she tells this to a lot of people...eventually someone that she tells, something life changing will happen...and people will think it's a higher power. Here is another story from my mom. She was driving along and had a huge craving for a doughnut (or some other food). She wasn't a big fan, but had a craving anyway. She stops buy to satisfy her craving and pulls out. Her tie rod then breaks while she is in the parking lot. She tells no one but my dad (cellphones were not big at the time). My dad tells no one. Later that evening a lady comes up to their house and tells my mom that God spared her life that day. Supposedly, the lady did not see anything nor did anyone tell her. Hey, maybe she's not being truthful. Maybe she say my mom that day...or someone told her. For what it's worth, she said that no one did though. I'm well aware that neither story is evidence. Just wanted to share some things (there are a couple others) which lead me to be agnostic with a lean towards something else. Was it a Krispy Kreme donut? They are said to be heavenly.

What is "superstition"? An example would be a spirit impregnating a virgin. Tough to sell me on that. I'm not sure I understand. What do you think is sufficient to label something a "superstition"? It has to be more than just something that is "tough to sell you on", right? There's lots of things that are at first tough to sell people on, but later we might think are true (e.g. a round earth, the incompleteness theorems, theory of general relativity). Are you saying it's only a matter of perspective, or an objective quality? No worries if you don't want to answer (this is an investment board after all). I've had similar conversations before with people who use the term, and am just curious. Thanks. This is how I view it. A father has a daughter. He promises her to another man in marriage -- he represents her to this man as a virgin. She gets pregnant before the wedding. A spirit did it! She is still a virgin. The story protects the good family name. It's tough to sell me on this kind of a story. I am more prone to believe that she had sex out of wedlock, and that's how she got pregnant. Others will fall (due to supernatural beliefs) for the line that a spirit did it. What do you think is sufficient to label something a "superstition"? It has to be more than just something that is "tough to sell you on", right? The role that a "spirit" plays in making a woman pregnant makes it a superstition from where I stand. Here is how Encyclopedia Britannica defines superstition -- I'm going to put the parts in bold that I find relevant: belief, half-belief, or practice for which there appears to be no rational substance. Those who use the term imply that they have certain knowledge or superior evidence for their own scientific, philosophical, or religious convictions. An ambiguous word, it probably cannot be used except subjectively. With this qualification in mind, superstitions may be classified roughly as religious, cultural, and personal

I am getting a good deal renting a home in Montecito for about a 3.1% net rental yield. I could own a REIT in my RothIRA yielding 6% and easily cover that rent -- nearly 1/2 the cost of ownership. To other folks it's harder if that yield is taxable -- especially in California with the added state income tax.

I do sort of have a form of religion. Heaven: The mental state of happiness and well being that, for example, I visit when I am kind to others and they appreciate my efforts. Thus it pays to be kind because you go to heaven (and you don't even need to die first!). Hell: The mental state of regret, depression, guilt, etc... that I visit when I've been mean or unkind towards others. Eternity: I feel like I have already lived forever because I can't remember my birth, nor will I be conscious of my death. So my life is "eternal" for all intents and purposes. If I live a mostly good life I may spend "eternity" in "heaven". God: My conscience. I cannot hide anything from it, it is all-knowing of my deeds. It judges my actions and sends me to "heaven" or "hell". Judgement day is continuous in real time on a rolling basis. The way others view my actions and provide additional feedback to me regarding the goodness of my actions is an extension of the omnipotent God. Basically, I can't hide from God -- completely impossible. I may try to repress something, but it will bubble up later. Fountain of youth: Woman is the fountain of youth from which my genes are born to the next generation, hopefully passing on my genes from one generation to the next. My DNA thus is continuously reborn. There is an alternate interpretation, being that others will remember me and be influenced by me, and they will in turn influence others, so that my actions on Earth will be retold in some small way for the rest of eternity, somewhat like a whale song. So there you go, that's a religion without superstition. It can give you reason to be kind to others, to live a virtuous life. Just focus on being happy for this eternity, and no you can't do that without being kind to and helping out others.

What is "superstition"? An example would be a spirit impregnating a virgin. Tough to sell me on that. Markets of course are efficient because all of the facts are known. I mean, I have no edge over the rest of the crowd right? I have just my reason and logic to guide me to conclusions that most others fail to reach given the same set of data :)

I would join a religion, maybe, if they would strip out all the superstition. It's a tall order, I'll admit. And marriage... well for some folks it isn't even legal to get married. How about fixing the law to at least give them the opportunity to be married?

You shouldn't take into account the opinion of such charlatans - they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not taking their opinions into account. I'm taking this data into account: http://www.ceridianindex.com/reports/index.php Next, I'm saying that (based on that data), I'm losing confidence in going against the ECRI's call.

I think BAC will fall further when the broader market starts pricing in recession risk. My confidence in going against the ECRI call is in rapid decline and I'm buying market puts.

I don't think Twacowfca was saying allow only poor immigrants. He was saying that immigration would be a net positive...all forms be it refugee, entrepreneurial, etc. Cheers! Hopefully they are placed somewhere where their skills can be applied. Twelve percent of Spain's workforce was employed in construction in 2007 -- unless they have other skills, these laid off workers are not a good fit for the US. But somewhere in the world they must be in shortage? I am getting impatient with the US government. Our problem has been one of too many houses for sale -> so we just need more people to purchase and fill them. Why is this taking so long to recognize and address?

So our unemployment rate goes up and theirs goes down. I like the other idea better -- give out visas to people who can pay cash for houses.

I read what Einhorn had to say... He says ZIRP won't work because it won't reflate the stock market. He doesn't acknowledge that refinancing at low rates has played the biggest role in getting the consumer debt service ratio down to nearly the lowest point in 30 years. Of course, that would be a positive thing and he only speaks of it's failures.

I sort of side with your thinking that we're due once again for the annual panic end-of-capitalism sell off. I will stand to benefit the way I've got things positioned, but not as much as you (I don't have 50% in cash).

Is that a relatively new line of thinking (information from the Fairfax weekend)? I don't believe BAC is hitting tangible book this year if that unfolds -- so it makes me think you've recently grown more suspicious of the market.

And I am always reluctant about the right because of the quasi automatic association I have never understand with the religion, against homosexual, with the negation of evolution theory, negation of climate change, etc. Superstition, hate, and ignorance?

He doesn't strike me as believing in EMT. I remember when he talked of "Irrational Exuberance" -- right there that casts him out of the EMT church.

No fear was involved to distort their perceptions.

yeah, that one doesn't show up for me =/. The "analysis" section is labeled as new for me, but that's it. It doesn't seem fair. Perhaps call them and ask for the feature to be added to your account. I never asked for it though. Or tell them that you deserve a discounted rate for the discounted feature set that you have been given.

After logging in, I get to the "Portfolio Summary" page. There are tabs for "Summary", "Portfolio Positions", "Portfolio Research", "Performance", "Analysis", "Statements"

Watch the one on "Color Coded Surgery". Amazing.

Fidelity's calculation now claims that the account has cumulative performance since date of inception of 18,474.81%. In March 2010, I wrote that the cumulative performance since date of inception was 25,153.26%. The account since I last wrote about it in March 2010 has increased 80%. It seems reasonable to conclude that they've either fixed a bug in their calculation of performance or they've introduced one. It's weird -- cumulative performance shouldn't decline after an 80% gain. They claim the account is now at 76.87% annualized compounding rate since inception vs the prior number of 118.51% that was reported by Fidelity two years ago.