Irvine homebuying down 11%

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
irvinehomeowner said:
Don't you find it ironic that you are calling people insecure or defensive because they are making up "fantasies" about you... but you seem to always resort to the insult route.
Click to expand...

How did I insult you? You said:
If we didn't have kids, we would probably have saved up enough money to buy our dream 3CWG...
Click to expand...

If you read that statement, you are directly attributing your lack of a "3CWG" home to your kids. It's completely disgusting. You can call it flame baiting (I'm not), but you should be man enough to admit that you don't have a 3CWG home that you want because of your own inability. You chose to have kids, at least be man enough to not use them as a scapegoat for your own personal lack of material possessions.

Generally, I think most of your post are just normal water cooler discussion, which is okay for this internet forum, but this last statement is just spineless. As I said 2x before, not a comment on your own character, but on the actual statement itself.
 
Why is it disgusting that what he said is a fact? Kids aren't free. Financial sacrifices in exchange for raising children exists. I have a child. I should know. If Iho was telling his kid, "I wish you were never born so I could have my three car garage" that would be one thing and yes, that would be disgusting. That is not his attitude, though. He is happy with the exchange he made. Kids now for a garage later. That's no sign of "inability". It's a sign of unselfishness. What's the big deal?
 
IndieDev said:
irvinehomeowner said:
Don't you find it ironic that you are calling people insecure or defensive because they are making up "fantasies" about you... but you seem to always resort to the insult route.
Click to expand...

How did I insult you?
Click to expand...
Oh... not just me... but anyone you argue with. It's your go-to move because you are looking for more of a reaction than actually discussing something. The thing you don't seem to get is it doesn't work with me, you've repeatedly questioned my education and now your latest salvo is trying to put words in my mouth when it's your reading comprehension that is at issue.
Indie said:
You said:
If we didn't have kids, we would probably have saved up enough money to buy our dream 3CWG...
Click to expand...

If you read that statement, you are directly attributing your lack of a "3CWG" home to your kids. It's completely disgusting. You can call it flame baiting (I'm not), but you should be man enough to admit that you don't have a 3CWG home that you want because of your own inability. You chose to have kids, at least be man enough to not use them as a scapegoat for your own personal lack of material possessions.

Generally, I think most of your post are just normal water cooler discussion, which is okay for this internet forum, but this last statement is just spineless. As I said 2x before, not a comment on your own character, but on the actual statement itself.
Click to expand...
Actually, what I said was this:
IHO said:
5. There will always be times when the emotional aspect means more than the financial one. If we didn't have kids, we would probably have saved up enough money to buy our dream 3CWG... but I wouldn't trade them for any amount of money. I do hope you understand that.
Click to expand...
Now while you may profess yourself as knowledgeable in financial aspects, your ability to discern meaning from a statement is lacking. You are the only one who sees my statement as blaming my kids... I was merely stating that if we didn't have kids, we probably would not have additional expenses and could afford other things, but that was not our desire. We wanted kids... no matter how much money it would have saved us because they mean more to us than any amount of money or home or 3CWG. There is NO blame there... just a statement to my point... emotional things can mean more than financial things.

Do you understand that? There was no point in our lives where we said "Kids or 3CWG?"... the thought never crossed our mind.

Your attempt to characterize my statement in such a manner is ridiculous and it just demonstrates your need to degrade others to make yourself feel better... you're more like TMZ than what you accuse others of and to continue on for the 3rd time just makes you look worse. Good job.

And again... if all your decisions in life are purely financial... I feel sorry for you and especially your kids (ooo... I can do IndieTMZ-like statments too).
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Your attempt to characterize my statement in such a manner is ridiculous and it just demonstrates your need to degrade others to make yourself feel better...
Click to expand...

While I agree with the above statement, I've also concluded that indiedev's self portrait is a winner at life, always. Probably because he has tiger blood running through his veins. Humility? Psshh that's for the weak, right? He plays by his own rules and refuses to lose to anyone to protect his pride. Your resistance is futile. Now let's all go to 85C and get some sea salt green tea.
 
ucla bruin said:
Probably because he has tiger blood running through his veins. Humility? Psshh that's for the weak, right? He plays by his own rules and refuses to lose to anyone to protect his pride.
Click to expand...
Now it all makes sense... I found Indie on YouTube:

[youtube]pipTwjwrQYQ[/youtube]

(apologies in advance if I've exposed Indie's real persona  ;) )
 
IHO, now you have done it. Please organize a 85 meet up for TI members! (<---serious)  :)

We can discuss the financial merits of drinking salt drinks there...
 
IndieDev said:
How did I insult you? You said:
If we didn't have kids, we would probably have saved up enough money to buy our dream 3CWG...
Click to expand...

If you read that statement, you are directly attributing your lack of a "3CWG" home to your kids. It's completely disgusting. You can call it flame baiting (I'm not), but you should be man enough to admit that you don't have a 3CWG home that you want because of your own inability. You chose to have kids, at least be man enough to not use them as a scapegoat for your own personal lack of material possessions.
Click to expand...

Come on, you know that's not what IHO meant. He's not *blaming* his kids for not having his dream 3CWG home.

I could say, gee, if I'd never had a child, I might be living in Paris right now. Or I might be a world-famous paleontologist digging up dinosaurs in Argentina. Or maybe I wouldn't be sporting outgrown highlights in my hair and raggedy nails. Does that mean I am blaming the facts that I don't live in Paris, dig up dinosaurs, or have nice hair/nails on my child? No. Our lives are the product of choices we've made. Not negative, not positive. Those are just the facts of life.

Here's the thing about attacking someone's parenting or feelings about their children: it's a low blow. You're smart enough to know that, so I can't imagine it was anything other than deliberate. Fortunately IHO's smart enough not to let himself be baited or get riled up about it. Me, on the other hand, I read it and said something like, "Oh no he di-i-int."As a mother, I was offended on his behalf. He's not using his kids as a scapegoat and you know it. Play fair. Even on the big, bad, more-anonymous-than-real-life internet.
 
Hi!

I knew a girl that was dating a cheap ass asian FCB that bitched her out cause when she dumped and wiped she didn't fold the soiled toilet paper in half to make a second pass.  Sheeitt.

 
what's going on here?  i've been a way for a bit and come back to kids fighting... 

anyways,  i thought i'd bring something up,  in the course of a recent conversation with a  very sr. person over at credit suisse, our discussion landed on "fundamentals"...    he used to run a commodity trade desk at some point.  in any event, he made an interesting comment about "dynamics"...  fundamentals are one thing, but do not ignore the dynamics of your asset/ commodity/ stock, etc...    he went on to explain a situation where his group capitalized to the tune of $$$$$$$$$$$$$  because investors/traders did not see the dynamics of the situation (a liquidity trap)...    as far as real estate goes, his question to me was, "what the hell is fundamental value?  there is no such thing as fundamental value for localized real estate...    people say stupid things like this, but no one challenges the notion...  there is no theoretical pricing model, or standardized valuation for real estate, just look at the idiots who appraise real estate...  a comp is nothing but a non-significant sample size...  "   

we discussed fundamental valuation...  it should be used as a barometer and not as law...  why?  garbage in garbage out...    residential real estate data is not great, local data is not robust...  focusing on zip code movements is too narrow sighted...    focus on macro trends, and apply intuition...      then buy what you can afford... 
 
akim997 said:
what's going on here?  i've been a way for a bit and come back to kids fighting... 

anyways,  i thought i'd bring something up,  in the course of a recent conversation with a  very sr. person over at credit suisse, our discussion landed on "fundamentals"...    he used to run a commodity trade desk at some point.  in any event, he made an interesting comment about "dynamics"...  fundamentals are one thing, but do not ignore the dynamics of your asset/ commodity/ stock, etc...    he went on to explain a situation where his group capitalized to the tune of $$$$$$$$$$$$$  because investors/traders did not see the dynamics of the situation (a liquidity trap)...    as far as real estate goes, his question to me was, "what the hell is fundamental value?  there is no such thing as fundamental value for localized real estate...    people say stupid things like this, but no one challenges the notion...  there is no theoretical pricing model, or standardized valuation for real estate, just look at the idiots who appraise real estate...  a comp is nothing but a non-significant sample size...  "   

we discussed fundamental valuation...  it should be used as a barometer and not as law...  why?  garbage in garbage out...    residential real estate data is not great, local data is not robust...  focusing on zip code movements is too narrow sighted...    focus on macro trends, and apply intuition...      then buy what you can afford... 
Click to expand...

we listened to credit suisse and ended up with millions of securities on our books that we cant sell (other than for a loss that is).

i would disagree that there is no fundamental value to real estate. cash flow investors use cash flow valuations all the time, which is what i consider to be the fundamental value of a home. i would agree that if you use the wrong rent amounts then you would be off (garbage in/out) but you just do a sensitivity analysis.  Its harder for a home buyer to come to a fundamental value because they start mixing emotional components such as better memories as a result of owning, etc, which probably skews their valuations of what a home is really worth. You have to admit, cash flow valuations have been used for a long time in real estate for a long time not because no has challenged the notion of it, but because it makes sense and that is why it is still used today.  I would agree though that real estate appraisers using comps dont mean much in terms of fundamental valuations.
 
This thread reveals a lot about how weak people can be emotionally. My keyboard can sometimes be more powerful than a fist. I surprise myself.

As for real estate not having any "fundamental" valuation, that's very close to ridiculous. All goods and services have a fundamental valuation.
 
IndieDev said:
This thread reveals a lot about how weak people can be emotionally. My keyboard can sometimes be more powerful than a fist. I surprise myself.

As for real estate not having any "fundamental" valuation, that's very close to ridiculous. All goods and services have a fundamental valuation.
Click to expand...

I thought the point of internet discussions was a civil exchange of ideas and views, not emotional wrestling?
 
the credit suisse guy had to sound smart, trying to out think the room.
IndieDev said:
This thread reveals a lot about how weak people can be emotionally. My keyboard can sometimes be more powerful than a fist. I surprise myself.

As for real estate not having any "fundamental" valuation, that's very close to ridiculous. All goods and services have a fundamental valuation.
Click to expand...

the credit suisse guy had to sound smart, thats what they get paid to do. those banker types always try to outthink the room even when the answer is not that complicated.
 
IrvineRes said:
IndieDev said:
This thread reveals a lot about how weak people can be emotionally. My keyboard can sometimes be more powerful than a fist. I surprise myself.

As for real estate not having any "fundamental" valuation, that's very close to ridiculous. All goods and services have a fundamental valuation.
Click to expand...

I thought the point of internet discussions was a civil exchange of ideas and views, not emotional wrestling?
Click to expand...

Well when Al Gore invented it, that was the original intent, but with the advent of the iPhone, it's sadly been lost.
 
qwerty said:
the credit suisse guy had to sound smart, thats what they get paid to do. those banker types always try to outthink the room even when the answer is not that complicated.
Click to expand...

True. When it comes down to it, every good and service obviously has a fundamental value, this is what every classical/neo-classical economist has been saying for the past 300 years, and they're right. When we walk into a grocery store, and see that milk is $20 dollars a gallon, something in our mind begins to spark and says, "That's a rip off." That spark, knowingly, or unwittingly, is because we as participants in this market economy understand that there is a fundamental value to the price of milk. The information is public knowledge. Cows cost a certain amount, milk extracting equipment cost money, and labor can be qualified down to the hour. You add a profit incentive, and there you are, a fundamental valuation.

Akim's credit friend is a moron.
 
IndieDev said:
True. When it comes down to it, every good and service obviously has a fundamental value, this is what every classical/neo-classical economist has been saying for the past 300 years, and they're right. When we walk into a grocery store, and see that milk is $20 dollars a gallon, something in our mind begins to spark and says, "That's a rip off." That spark, knowingly, or unwittingly, is because we as participants in this market economy understand that there is a fundamental value to the price of milk. The information is public knowledge. Cows cost a certain amount, milk extracting equipment cost money, and labor can be qualified down to the hour. You add a profit incentive, and there you are, a fundamental valuation.
Click to expand...
This was good.
IndieTMZDefenseMechanism said:
Akim's credit friend is a moron.
Click to expand...
This one not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top