Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (6880)	11/17/2002 9:19:44 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

If someone presented a case to me where someone had a negative net worth of $173,000 I would assume one of two things. Either they were a recent graduate of medical or law school or they were a high salaried individual living way beyond their means. This hardly describes most 55-64 year olds let alone half of them. It's a ridiculous statement. you are confusing yourself. there is a statement of fact: avg. net worth is -173K. then you make two arbitrary assumptions, which, according to you, must be satisfied in order to make the statement true. since your assumptions are not satisfied, you conclude that the original statement is "ridiculous". but in fact you have just tricked yourself, because your arbitrary assumptions are just that, and have no relation to the statement of fact. a statement of fact cannot be ridiculous based on a laundry list of unrelated, arbitrary assumptions. it is either true or not true. so if you want to say Roach is stating a falsehood and you have the data to back it up, be my guest. but do not confuse yourself by walking down a garden path of your own making.

To: GraceZ who wrote (6880)	11/17/2002 9:26:19 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

If this is true:... How can this be true:... this is a valid point. however, there may be some counterintuitive explanation. e.g., there may be other interest earners, such as pension funds, that are attributed to household interest income. or perhaps it is the older segment (65 and older) that earns all the interest. or that the debt held by the -173K cohort (mainly mortgages) is lower-yielding on average than the assets held by the interest earners. or that a large segment of the debtors are not servicing their liabilities. or some combination thereof. i certainly don't have the answer. i think you should ask Roach for an explanation of this. but i would not automatically assume that the -173K net worth figure is wrong, or that one of these apparently contradictory statements is untrue.