SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : Investing in Real Estate - Creative Opportunities -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: peter michaelson who wrote (2544)5/29/2016 12:49:38 PM
From: John Vosilla  Respond to of 2722
 
Now everything seems way to expensive to buy. I am locked into a mentality built from past experience (which did not include 3% mortgages), and am paralyzed - other than continuing to operate past investments. Rents have been stronger and vacancy lower than anyone imagined five years ago.

Getting that way here to. I am probably going to just do some buy and quick flip foreclosures online auctions going forward as got my fill of rentals.. Never have I seen the SF house rental market so tight but be careful the higher end class A apartment market seems like an awful lot of supply coming on line so that asset class to worry about near term. Seeing some second and third phase storage and mixed use flex space being built on land that was left over from the last bubble even though much vacancy still lingers in those sectors .

Clear sailing overall a few more years at least until the next armageddon but when will that be??



To: peter michaelson who wrote (2544)5/29/2016 12:55:08 PM
From: John Vosilla  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2722
 
Still you proceeded with confidence and I'm sure did very well.

The irony is the housing crash board regulars who I was in constant communication with from 2005-08 thought the downtrend would continue and mocked those few of us who smelled the bottom around the time Obama became president.. It actually wasn't that hard required a real brain, knowledge of RE, finance and economic cycles and independent type against the crowd thinking. The spreads in late 2008 and all 2009 going into any type of deal were incredible but quickly vanished by mid 2010 thanks to the fed. If you believe the 18 year cycle next top before any chance of a rollover should be 2023-24??



To: peter michaelson who wrote (2544)12/30/2016 10:11:11 AM
From: John Vosilla  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2722
 
Who really caused the housing crisis? I report you decide

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

youtube.com

Uploaded on Sep 24, 2008
The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and what thus became the 2008 financial crisis -- starting in 2002 (and actually even earlier -- in the Clinton and Carter White Houses. Democrats resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans to people who couldn't afford them -- just like you would expect of socialists. See our web site for more.



some excellent counterpoint and rebuttal comments:

NAP 10 months ago

You are not a very bright Canadian if you point to Fox News for facts or fair and balanced reporting. Fox News has a long proud tradition of supporting the Republican brand while keeping it's viewers mislead, misinformed, angry and paranoid of the opposing party. This video is just one example. The 2008 Financial crisis was fueled by the thousands of Subprime mortgage lenders and "Shadow banking" who were not required to follow Federal rules, regulation or safeguards. There numbers grew from 2002 - 2006 to represent over 60% of housing sales in the US. Also, the lax oversight and regulation that generally go hand in hand with Republican rule. The Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac legislation passed in the House of Representatives, despite what this video imply's, but was never brought up for a vote in the Republican controlled Senate. It would have made no difference in any case because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not, as a practice, deal in Subprime Mortgages which was the problem. Most any economist worth his salt will tell you that. Both party's have had their hand in the root causes of the financial crisis, but only one party was in total charge of the Presidency and both houses of congress while the abuses were taking place. Its the same party that was blaming and attacking Iraq for 9/11 while Iran was advancing it's Nuclear program, and the same party that made torture a matter of US policy. You can do better than this Canada.?

ginger matich 1 year ago

Yeah. Oops. As you know, the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, until January 2007. Their continued disregard for policing Wall St was the primary factor in the housing meltdown. As you know, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were LATECOMERS to the party, and participated AFTER the incestuous relationship between mortgage "graders" and Wall St took over. Please know your history BEFORE you fall prey to this bullshit. Otherwise, your opinions would be based on MISINFORMATION, and you'd be playing right into their hands. No one wants to be manipulated like that. . . . .do they??

Jim McCleary 7 months ago

+ginger matich Incorrect and somewhat irrelevant... minority parties in Congress do have ability to block legislation unless the majority is filibuster proof, which occurred at no time during the Bush admin. The climate for Wall Street mischief was created under tightening of the CRA as well as repeal of Glass Steagall - under Clinton. Senate Dems blocked resulting oversight of Fannie and Freddie, during the Bush admin, while Democrat leaders were getting huge contributions from the same... like Barney Frank... it's all out there, google search it. There could've been more done under Bush but the conditions were created by the Clinton admin. Even Clinton himself acknowledged Democrats blocked Republican attempts at regulation. Ex: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S. 190) (bill introduced by Chuck Schumer). And get this... they blocked it because they opposed capping Fannie and Freddie's portfolios (exposure to risk). That was a big oops indeed. Pretty much how it went down was while Clinton was strengthening the CRA pressuring banks to issue bad loans, and people like Barack Obama was working with ACORN threatening lending institutions with lawsuits if they didn't make them... the banks said, what the hell and wrote the bad paper, because the fed would bail them out anyway

Guessing this pic says it all
JV