Forum Replies Created
I received one too from someone in South Australia.
Cheerrs,
Jack
(pisces)>>He sells happiness. Tells people they can be wealthy and for weeks months or years they get to believe it.<<
No, he sells HOPE.
There are many people out there (and here ?) who haven’t got the faintest idea as to how to go about accumulating assets.
They have scratched together a few lousy dollars
and spend it on an outrageously priced seminar.Are they doing the wrong thing by themselves ?
I am not so sure either way. (we have to start somewhere).
It is oh so easy for us to condemn foolish behaviour.
But I reckon that most of us (including myself) do not produce anywhere near the most of our potential.
So we too may well be self sabotaging our case.
Pisces
>>Agree on the “Noodle Bar”, that amount of effort for around $30,000 to $40,000…..????
GMH, there are many many people, mostly immigrants I would say, who aren’t employable and the only way they can get off the dole is to start a business.
People who run a small cornershop (or take away shop) don’t make a lot of money and work long hours.
To us it sounds ridiculous having to work for
$ 500 a week and having to work 70 to 80 hours a week, spread out over seven days a week.These people have no alternative so they just do it.
I feel sorry for them, all of them. I also admire them because they haven’t given up and keep plodding along just to (barely) stay afloat.
Pisces
Aceyducey, there is nothing phony about Mr Lowy. He is an old family friend and I can vouch for his honesty (as will countless others).
He is extremely wealthy and a philantropist in his own rights, contributing to many worthy causes. Most of his contributions we never even hear or read about.
I received his email well before the article was published.
In fact, I was asked to hold off publicity until the article was published.
So Aceyducey, are you going to become a contributor ? (remember the side benefits !!)
Pisces
Just goes to show you that sometimes one is wrong.
Anyway, want to become a contributor Gramyre ?
Pisces
The point is that mixing with tenants isn’t the smartest thing to do.
Keep your distance because, sure as hell, the moment they get into trouble you will be the last one to get paid.
Have a managing agent as it is well worth the expense to keep a distance between yourself and the tenants.
But of course that is a bit of advice that many people will not heed.
Recognise that usually the motivation to do good is really to satisfy our own desire to feel good.
So if you want to feel good you can achieve that and much more by donating to a charity like the Salvation Army. They of all charities deserve support.
Pisces
>>The interest can be expensive, but it’s worth looking into.<<
Yeh, interesting alright but I doubt it will be of any use as 16.5% comes first fo a second mortgage and, unless you are looking at an advertisement placed by your mother, you wouldn’t have a chance in hell of borrowing over and above 80% unless of course you are rpepared to pay a lot more than the said 16.5%.
If however you’ve got say $ 3 K cash towards the de[posit + are entitled to the FHOG of $ 7 K you are already a long way there as a vendor may well lend you the shortfall. Just asking for it is all you can do and ened to do.
Also, there are institutional lenders about who will lend you 90 %, 100 % and even 105 % of the purchase price.
Any of the brokers on this site can I am sure, help you there.
Pisces
>>I have decided to buy myself an easter egg for each property I have<<
Better still, go to a greek delicatessen shop and buy some egg paint. Very simple, you cook the egg in water into which you have put some paint (one colour at the time of course – no shortcuts)
Chook eggs are much cheaper (and healthier) than chocolate eggs and just as colourful.
Pisces
Have a look at that Elves, so many nosey parkers wanting to read private mail. [wink]
Pisces
>>It all sounds like sh*t to me!! BIS Shrapnel, a few years ago forecast a depression!!!!!<<
A forecast is just that. It isn’t written in concrete as things can change overnight.
In other words, a forecast isn’t telling the future so much as merely being a projection based on the facts known up to that time.
Pisces
This is another test…
The real question is whether the economist is right in his outlook.
That certainly isn’t necessarily so as ‘they’ have been known to get things wrong before.
Of course, we all h-o-p-e that the opinion is correct so we can continue what we are doing and sleep well at the same time.
In the meantime, trying to look at the picture from a bit longer term point of view isn’t a bad idea. it means we can sleep well AND at the same time perhaps buy a property here and there at ‘the right price’.
Pisces
HoldenCommodore, have a look again at your post.
It is one big blob of words. I haven’t, just couldn’t finish it.
Pleeze, next time, break it up into several paragraphs. It makes it so much easier for others to understand. [wink2]
Pisces
>>bloody media, ay pisces? <<
Well I haven’t seen the program but, yes, sure looks like it. Looking at things from one perspective only.
Don’t tell me that there aren’t any good points in the scheme so where is the balanced view ?
What channel did you say the story was on, Richmond ? [wink]
Pisces
Yeh, good idea to spruce up the front yard with some palm trees.
Thanks for the idea.
Pisces
Well, I am thoroughly ashamed to say that I learned (i.e. followed others like a sheep) to abuse one particular boy because he happened to have a brown skin colour.
I can remember that a bunch of us were following him and yelling out ‘shitty, shitty’ merely because of his colour.
I certainly wasn’t brought up that way at home.
And that was in a Catholic school as well. So much for having been taught the screed ‘love your neighbour’.
Pisces
As noted by other replies, offering multiple properties as security for an overall loan limit, locks borrower into one lender.
Selling properties under such a arrangement would entail the lender revaluing all proposed remaining securities (unless valuations had been done recently), to acertain the residual total value, and the total loan limit adjusted according to total residual value. This appears to be a fairly rigid negotiation senario with lender, and not wonderfully flexible and simple loan packaging lenders may claim.
A LOC is really just like any other loan as far as securities apply, it may or may not have multiple securities to support the loan limit. Portfolio loans (LOC) employ multiple securities/collateralisation feature.
A possibly better option is to establish a LOC for investment against one security such as PPOR. Then investor can draw funds from this LOC as cash deposits for purchase of IP’s that are independantly securitised with most suitable lender.
A downside to this strategy, is until the LOC is fully drawn in purchasing income earning assets, the undrawn amount is reducing more significantly, your total loan servicability, ie; LOC is just another liability where lenders include repayments required to service the maximum drawings. To minimise the loan serviceability problem, you can incrementally increase you LOC limit before each proposed asset purchase.
James
>>If it was some Joe Blow who usually finishes 5 minutes after Thorpe and had no chance of qualifying would there be such a fuss? I doubt it.
<<Exactly, that is right.
However ………….., the difference between Thorpe and an also run comepetitor is the very reason why the rule should have been overridden in this case.
Unless of course if management had reason to belief that it was a deliberate tactic by Thorpe to unsettle the rest of the field. (which I don’t believe to be the case).
I have seen a similar situation take place (in another sport) where the strongest person by far happened to get eliminated.
As it turned out he did finish up going to the Games though in a different weight category (totally out of place).
I wonder whether it isn’t possible for someone who is outstanding to yet be selected by having more than one competitor nominated for the same event.
Or perhaps there could be a rule that a previous gold medal winner could automatically be added to the team, if warranted ?
Yeh, I know the other contenders will scream to high heaven. So what ?
Pisces
Yes, this is my final say too on the topic (for the moment at least).
Richmond, as far as I know I haven’t had any real dialog with any of the moderators other than Bear (in a private email some time ago).
On the other hand, I have participated in several threads where you posted too.
So my remark that you are my favourite moderator isn’t really as far off the mark as you seem to think.
This isn’t, what you call, petulant crap as I have a genuine liking for you even if it may not be reciprocated.
You are O.K. except for the reaction of jumping immediately to your employer’s defense when you yourself aren’t under attack at all.
As far as your remark “I think it’s hard for some people to separate the 6pm news (which is my domain) from the 60 minutes and ACA of this world…” is concerned , I don’t think it is unreasonable to hold the station as a whole (i.e. the management company) responsible for whatever wrongdoing any one particular segment has committed.
It is such a common principle that I understand that the court sees it that way too.
>>News as it pertains to my job is day to day goings on… elections, murders, car crashes, coups etc etc. And there’s never any debate as to the truth of what’s happened…<<
and
>>That’s why when people make sweeping statements I get narky, because I’ll defend to the hilt what we do at 6pm in Melbourne every night of the year.<<
But no-one is attacking that particular segment Richmond.
Finally, I genuine didn’t have a clue that ACA is a part of channel 9 as I hardly watch Australian TV. I actually looked up earlier today what station ‘Today Tonight’ belongs to as that is what I remembered from your statement (so any half truths were not intended as that isn’t the way I (think I) operate.
Cheers,
Pisces
>>As for your case in terms of the defamed eye clinic… if the journo stuffed up, then they should get in trouble, I can’t be any clearer than that. Humans make mistakes, I just don’t agree with your view that “THE MEDIA” are all out to cover stories and take angles for the wrong reasons.<<
Well I have had a few days to think about whether to respond or not to respond and the result is that I simply MUST respond. Trying to get you Richmond to see things a bit more my way.
After all, as you are my most favourite moderator by far I couldn’t possibly retire without at least responding to your post.
Your response shown in the first paragraph of this post appears to indicate that you feel that it isn’t ‘The Media’ or even a particular “Media Organisation’ which is responsible for character assassination so much as the individual journalist.
That of course is balderdash considering that there is a whole hierarchy above the journalist who could jump in at anyone time to prevent a biased and untrue story going to air (or in print).
So the guilt is to be shared collectively, i.e. with the management structure, including the board.
It couldn’t possibly be correct that management is caught by surprise. There just have been too many court cases lost over the years by the different media companies for management not to be aware of the dangers.
In other words ‘The Media’ have suffered too many painful fines by now not to have had safeguards in place if they wanted to.
If there is any doubts wouldn’t it make sense to take legal advice before running a doubtful story ? Could we possibly believe that management is so dumb as not to know of this avenue ? Surely not.
This clearly indicates that they are going into spurious though sensational, rate attracting, stories with their eyes wide open.
I note, Richmond, that in previous post you have said as much as that you too don’t like programs like Today Tonight.
But that of course is Channel 7 and you appear to believe that your own employer isn’t of course guilty of character assassinations.
Of course not. Except that only just barely one month ago your very own employer was found guilty in court of character assassination on three counts.
Richmond, is that sufficient proof that your employer isn’t any different from the competition or do I need to go to the Law Society’s library to see whether I can dig up some further supporting evidence ?
Pisces
