USA: Produkcja zadluzenia przyspiesza...

LBS...

[Gość: hubert100]

Co ty chcesz weryfikowac z tym H..em? Tej pie..nej Gnidzie co reprezentuje
soba tyle co menda siedzaca na jaju trzeba poslac pare h..ow jak tylko otworzy
ta swoja zaspermiala morde. To jest przeciez oszust i pekniety kondom.Klamka to
zaszczyt ktory mnie spotkal.On jest haczykiem od sracza.Jego urzadzenia pracuja
tu,pracuja tam.Jakie urzadzenia? Do zakladania kondomow? Jak by byl blisko to
nalezalo by mu wpie..spuscic i to dobrze.Ten h.. nie ma honoru za grosz ale
jak moze miec jak to meska ku...

[Gość: hubert100]

"Wezme sie za Felusiaka" a "Hubert sie slinil i czolgal do moich stop". Ty wszo
pie..na,staralem sie byc po prostu uprzejmy a za mam troche roots w
Niemczech myslalem ze po tylu latach to cos zes sie nauczyl.Okazalo sie ze
gowno, genow nie zmienisz.Wiem ze niemieckie dzwigi sa dobre i chcialem
rozszerzyc swoje wiadomosci.Pomyslalem ze trafilem na "experta".Nic ci h..u nie
proponowalem od samego poczatku.Napisac cos co sie ma w jednym palcu to chyba
niewielka praca? Buso jest w Berlinie a wiedzac ze "trenujesz" 12 godzin na dobe
(teraz wiem ze chyba w smarowaniu dupy wazelina) to dla ciebie nic wskoczyc na
rower i zobaczyc jakis showhome i ich urzadzenia.Masz glowe "techniczna" to
bedziesz mogl cos powiedziec.Jak sie okazalo ze tak sie h..u znasz
na "urzadzeniach" ze roweru od helikoptera nie odroznisz a glowe to masz ale we
wlasnej dupie. Kim ty szmato zaoliwiona jestes? Nie jestes czlowiekiem, nie
jestes zwierzeciem. Jestes za..ym "wirusem" co wslizgnal sie na ten internet
i ludziom maci w glowach. Ty zasyfialy gnoju jak bym mogl to bym cie w szambie
utopil bez mrugniecia okiem.Mam nadzieje ze moze aids gdziesz zalapiesz i
zdechniesz w rysztoku gdzie jest twoje wlasciwe miejsce.Zpie..j h..u zlamany
z mojego widoku i z maich mysli.

Troche zmodyfikowane pytanie felusiak 6

[Gość: JOrl]

Zapowiadalem cos prostszego felusiak. Wiec i mam naprawde proste pytanie ktore
sie wlasnie niedawno nawinelo.

Twoje slowa drogi felusiak:

>Za 2006 Chiny osiagneły nadwyżkę w handlu zagranicznym w wysokości 180 mld
>dolarów. Nadwyżka z USA wyniosła 233 mld, co oznacza, ze z reszta swiata Chiny
>miały deficyt równy 53 mld dolarów.

Te Chiny w tym powyzszym cytacie to te Chrl? Ze stolica w Pekinie? Bez Hongkongu?
Mysle ze na to naprawde latwo Tobie bedzie odpowiedziec, prawda?

W oczekiwaniu na jednoznaczna odpowiedz,

Pozdrowienia

Produkcja zadluzenia

[Gość: pawel-l]

Excerpted from The Elliott Wave Theorist, May issue, published April 30, 2007

When I wrote Conquer the Crash, outstanding dollar-denominated debt was $30
trillion. Just five years later it is $43 trillion, and most of the increase
has gone into housing, financial investments and buying goods from abroad. This
is a meticulously constructed Biltmore House of cards, and one wonders whether
it can stand the addition of a single deuce. Its size and grandeur are no
argument against the ultimate outcome; they are an argument for it.

[Here's] just one isolated aspect of the debt bubble as it relates directly to
financial prices: In 1999, the public was heavily invested in mutual funds, and
mutual funds had 96 percent of their clients’ money invested in stocks. At the
time I thought that percentage of investment was a limit. I was wrong. Today,
much of the public has switched to so-called hedge funds (a misnomer).
Bridgewater estimates that the average hedge fund in January had 250 percent of
its deposits invested. This month the WSJ reports funds with ratios as high as
13 times.

How can hedge funds invest way more money than they have? They borrow the rest
from banks and investment firms, using their investment holdings as collateral.
So they are heavily leveraged. And this is only part of the picture. Much of
the money invested in hedge funds in the first place is borrowed. Some
investors take out mortgages to get money to put into hedge funds. Some
investment firms borrow heavily from banks and brokers to invest in hedge
funds. As for lenders, the WSJ reports today [April 30, 2007], “…the nation’s
four largest securities firms financed $3.3 trillion of assets with $129.4
billion of shareholders’ equity, a leverage ratio of 25.5 to 1.”

So the financial markets today have been rising in unison because of leverage
upon leverage, an inverted pyramid of IOUs, all supported by a comparatively
small amount of actual cash. This swelling snowball of borrowing is how the
nominal Dow has managed to get to a new high even though it is in a raging bear
market in real terms: The expansion in credit inflates the dollar denominator
of value, and the credit itself goes to buying more stocks, bonds and
commodities. The buying raises prices, and higher prices provide more
collateral for more borrowing. And all the while real stock values, as measured
by gold, have quietly fallen by more than half! Seemingly it is a perpetual
motion machine; but one day the trend will go into reverse, and the value of
total credit will begin shrinking as dollar prices collapse.

The investment markets are only part of the debt picture. Most individuals have
borrowed to buy real estate, cars and TVs. Most people don’t own such
possessions; they owe them. Credit card debt is at a historic high. The Atlanta
Braves just announced a new program through which you can finance the purchase
of season tickets. Can you imagine telling a fan in 1947 that someday people
would take out loans to buy tickets to a baseball game? Instead of buying
things for cash these days, many consumers elect to pay not only the total
value for each item they buy but also a pile of additional money for interest.
And they choose this option because they can’t afford to pay cash for what they
want or need. Self-indulgent and distress borrowing for consumption cannot go
on indefinitely. But while it does, the “money supply”—actually the credit
supply—inflates. But it is all a temporary phenomenon, because debt binges
always exhaust themselves.

As far as I can tell, virtually everyone else sees things differently.
Countless bulls on stocks, gold and commodities insist that the process is
simple: the Fed is inflating the “money supply” by way of its “printing press,”
and there is no end in sight. The Fed is indeed the underlying motor of
inflation because it monetizes government debt, but the banking system, thanks
to the elasticity of fiat money, manufactures by far the bulk of the credit—
credit, not cash. If you don’t believe credit can implode and investment prices
fall, then why did the housing market just have its biggest monthly price
plunge in two decades, and why is the trend toward lower prices now the longest
on record? If you don’t think credit and cash are different, then why are the
owners of “collateralized” mortgage “securities” beginning to panic over the
realization that their “investments” are melting in the sun?

Lewis Ranieri, one of the founders of the securitized mortgage market recently
warned that there are now so many interests involved in each mortgage that
massive cooperation among lawyers, accountants and tax authorities will be
required just to make simple decisions about restructuring a loan or disposing
of a house, i.e. the collateral, underlying a mortgage in default. In the old
days, the local bank would suss things out and come to a quick decision. But
now the structures are too complex for easy resolution, and creditors are
hamstrung with structural and legal impediments to accessing their collateral.
The modern structures for investment are so intricate and dispersed that a mere
recession will trigger a systemic disaster. When insurance companies and
pension plan administrators realize that they can’t easily and cheaply access
the underlying assets, what will their packaged mortgages be worth then? And
what will happen to the empty houses as they try to sort things out? This type
of morass relates to debt. Cash is easy; either you have it or you don’t.

[Gość: hubert100]

Ty pie..ny smierdzacy wirusie,znowu zes sie pokazal?Won, Raus.Jedyna
modyfikacja w twoim przypadku jest ze smierdzisz coraz wiecej z kazda sekunda.

Wynajmuj. Bedziesz bogatszy.

[kadi-lak]

Oczywiscie ponizszy wywod nie dotyczy Polakow, bo oni wiedza lepiej niz"glupi
Amerykanie" a poza tym miec swoje to najwazniejsza rzecz w zyciu.
Co najlepiej widac na infantylnym przykladzie Chrisa i Petera, przeznaczonym
dla niegramotnych polskich imigrantow.



A contrarian's view: Houses don't appreciate any faster than the level of
inflation over the long term, so forget about buying a home and put your
savings into stocks.

I have something un-American to confess: I rent an apartment despite having
enough money to buy a house. I plan to keep renting for as long as I can. I'm
not just holding out for better prices. Renting will make me richer.

I normally write about stocks for SmartMoney.com, but the boss asked me to
explain to readers my reason for renting. Here goes: Businesses are great
investments while houses are poor ones, so I'd rather rent the latter and own
the former.

Stocks versus houses: Returns
Shares of businesses return 7% a year over long periods. I'm subtracting for
inflation, gradual price increases for everything from a can of beer to an ear
exam. (After-inflation, or "real," returns are the only ones that matter. The
point of increasing wealth is to increase buying power, not numbers on an
account statement.)

Shares have been remarkably consistent over the past two centuries in their 7%
real returns. In Jeremy Siegel's book "Stocks for the Long Run," he finds that
real returns averaged 7% over nearly seven decades ending in 1870, then 6.6%
through 1925 and then 6.9% through 2004.

The average real return for houses over long periods might surprise you: It's
virtually zero.

Shares return 7% a year after inflation because that's how fast companies tend
to increase their profits. Houses have their own version of profits: rents.
Tenant-occupied houses generate actual rents, while owner-occupied houses
generate ones that are implied but no less real: the rents their owners don't
have to pay each year.

House prices and rents have been closely linked throughout history, with both
increasing at the rate of inflation, or about 3% a year since 1900. A house,
after all, is an ordinary good. It can't think up ways to drive profits like a
company's managers can. Absent artificial boosts to demand, house prices will
increase over long periods at the rate of inflation, for a real return of zero.

Robert Shiller, a Yale economist and the author of "Irrational Exuberance,"
which predicted the stock-price collapse in 2000, has recently turned his eye
to house prices. Between 1890 and 2004, he says, real house returns would've
been zero if not for two brief periods: one immediately after World War II and
another since about 2000. (More on them in a moment.) Even if we include these
periods, houses returned just 0.4% a year, he says.

The average pundit, planner, lender or broker making the case for ownership
doesn't look at returns since 1890. Sometimes they reduce the matter to maxims
about "building equity" and "paying yourself" instead of "throwing money down
the drain." If they do look at returns, they focus on recent ones. Those tell a
different story.

Between World War II and 2000, house prices beat inflation by about 2
percentage points a year. (Stocks during that time beat inflation by their
usual 7 percentage points a year.) Since 2000, houses have outpaced inflation
by 6 percentage points a year. (Stocks have merely matched inflation.)

Stocks versus houses: Valuations
But though stock returns have come from increased earnings, house returns have
come from ballooning valuations, not increased rents. The ratio of share prices
to company earnings (the price-earnings ratio) has remained relatively steady.
It's about 16 today, close to both its 1940 value of 17 and to its 130-year
average of about 15. Not so the ratio of house prices to rents. In 1940, the
median single-family house price was $2,938, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau, while the median rent was $27 a month, including utilities. That means
the ratio of prices to annual rents was 9. By 2000, the ratio had swelled to
17. In 2005, it hit 20. We can adjust for the size of dwellings, but it doesn't
make much difference. The ratio of single-family house prices to three-bedroom
apartments is 19. In SmartMoney's hometown of Manhattan, where more detailed
data is available, the ratio of condo prices per square foot to apartment rents
per square foot is 22.

Video: Should you rent or buy?
Two main events have caused house valuations to inflate since World War II.
First, the government subsidized housing by relaxing borrowing standards.
Before the creation of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) in 1934, homebuyers
who borrowed typically put up 40% of the purchase price in cash for a five- to
15-year loan.

By insuring mortgages, the FHA permitted terms of up to 20 years and down
payments of just 20%. It later expanded the repayment periods to 30 years and
reduced down payments to 5%. Today, down payments for FHA loans are as low as
3%. Aggressive lenders offer loans with no down payments or even negative ones
so that homebuyers can borrow the full purchase price plus closing costs. Some
require little documentation of income, assets or ability to pay.

That means more Americans can win loans for homes, and they can win them for
far more expensive homes than their incomes had previously allowed. Two-thirds
of American households own homes today, up from 44% in 1940, even though the
percentage of Americans living alone has tripled during that time. The ratio of
house values to incomes has risen 260% in just under four decades.

A second event helped boost house demand in recent years. Share prices plunged
in 2000. The Federal Reserve, fearing that the decline in stock wealth would
cause consumers to stop spending, reduced the federal-funds rate, the core
interest rate that determines the cost of everything from credit cards to
mortgages, to 1% by summer 2003 from 6.5% at the start of 2001. Since most of
the cost of financing a house over 30 years is interest, monthly house payments
shrank and demand for houses soared. In some markets a string of big yearly
increases in house prices led to panic buying.

Stocks versus houses: Conclusion
For house returns over the next 20 years to match those over the past 20, the
government and private lenders would have to "up the ante" by relaxing
borrowing standards further. Given the recent attention paid to swelling
foreclosures, that seems unlikely. I suspect real returns will turn negative
over most of the next two decades, but that house prices won't necessarily dip.
Since 1963, they've done so in only two years versus 18 for stocks.That's
because homeowners mostly just stick it out rather than sell during soft
markets. But if house prices remain flat, they produce negative real returns
due to the creep of inflation. According to calculations made by The Economist
in summer 2005, house prices would have to stay flat for 12 years with annual
inflation at 2.5% for the ratio of prices to rents to fall from its 2005 perch
to merely its 1975-to-2000 average.

So to sum up why I rent: Shares right now cost 16 times earnings and over long
periods return 7% a year after inflation. Houses right now cost 19 times
their "earnings" and over long periods return zero after inflation. And they
look likely to return less than that for a while.

Questions and objections
In what follows I've tried to anticipate and address questions and objections:

"You can't live in your stocks" or "Renters throw money down the drain."

Rent is the cost of owning shares with money you would otherwise spend on a
house. Houses have ownership costs, too: taxes, insurance and maintenance. Rent
costs about 5% of house prices each year if we apply

[Gość: nubert100]

Co sie dzieje z US$? Juz jest prawie 91c can.Moze byc 1:1.Wyglada na to ze ci
Amerykanie piszacy (nie w gazetach) mieli i maja racje.Jak zatrzymac spadek?
Felusiak sluchamy ciebie z uwaga.

[Gość: LastBoyScout]

>>>Jak zatrzymac spadek? <<<

A po co?

[Gość: hubert100]

Moze masz racje.Przejsc na Amero. Wymienic walute."Zwiazkowcom" (US, Canada,
Meksyk)godziwie a "reszcie" 100:1.

Jak sie nie odwrocisz doopa zawsze z tylu .....

[Gość: LastBoyScout]

Hubert, wyobraz sobie, ze na swoim korcie tenisowym do wczoraj
pedziles te swoja gorzale, ja sprzedawales Amerykanom
caly czas paplajac: skus baba na dziada, ty przeklety Jankesie!

No Jankes dzisiaj zbiednial i musial przestac kupowac twoja gorzale.

KOGO to problem: TWOJ czy Jankesa?

Do klamki, tej LEWEJ ...

[Gość: LastBoyScout]

Ile trzeba miec kompleksow aby musiec sie tak mocno o czyms zapewniac .......


Najprosciej (choc bez nadziei, ze dotrze):

W miasteczku X sa domy w ktorych zamieszkuja ich wlasciciele oraz domy ktore sa
wynajmowane.

W poniedzialek rano wszyscy wlasciciele domow uwierzyli Kadilakowi, ze nie
oplaca sie posiadac dom za to oplaca sie dom wynajmowac wiec wystawili swoje
domy na sprzedaz i sami rozpoczeli szukac domy do wynajmu.

Ze wzgledu na gwaltowna podaz domow na sprzedaz i zerowy popyt ceny
nieruchomosci spadly na leb.

Ze wzgledu na gwaltowna popyt na domy do wynajecia i zerowa podaz ceny wynajmu
poszly ekstremalnie do gory.

PYTANIE:

ILE w poniedzialek po poludniu BEDZIE MUSIAL zaplacic Kadilak swojemu
wlascicielowi domu za jego wynajm?

[kadi-lak]

Scenario nierealistyczne !
Widzisz, standardowy Ameryaknain, mieszkaniec dekturkowego domku na
przedmiesciach jest za glupi by samodzielnie inwestowac w akcje. Brokerom zas
nie wszyscy wierza.
Daltego "inwestuja" w domy. Do tego wystarczy umiec sie podpisac.

[Gość: hubert100]

To tez prawda. Na gieldzie mozna zarobic ale wiekszosc traci.Dom jezeli go
nie "stracisz" to przez 30 lat pojdzie do gory.Moim zdaniem poniewaz i tak
trzeba gdzies mieszkac to lepiej go miec.Najwieksi co zarobili na stocku
miljardy mieszkaja we wlasnych domach. Czy myslicie ze Warren Buffett wynajmuje?

[Gość: LastBoyScout]

>>>Czy myslicie ze Warren Buffett wynajmuje ?

Kadilak MYSLI, ze wszyscy bogaci NIE SA bogaci bo kupuja domy
a wszyscy biedni SA bogaci bo te domy wynajmuja od biednych.

Proste, nie? Jak logika bolszewika ! :)

Z Twojej zabiej perspektywy

[kadi-lak]

To moze i proste. Ty jednak permanentnie popelniasz karygodny blad: patrzysz
ze swej perspektywy na caly problem. Takze na sytuacje innych.

Wynajmowanie, splacanie, wyrzucanie pieniedzy, trala,l ala....- operuejsz tymi
terminami tak, jakby tu chodzilo o RZECZYWISTE , liczace sie w budzecie
rodziny/ jednostki pieniadze. Zapewnie malo zarabiasz facet.

Mnie mieszkanie kosztuje dzis malo.
Zaden wydatek.


Nie wykluczam, ze mi sie znudzi ono kiedys jednak i wynajme sobie, na przyklad,
cos wiekszego i ladniejszego,po kapitalnym remoncie, w lepszym miejscu,
powiedzmy za $2500.00 miesiecznie.
Zaden wydatek.

Powiedzmy, ze zwariowalem jednak kupie sobie ten dom. Zaczne splacac mortgage
i moze nawet wpuszcze rentujacego do piwnicy. Wyremontuje bude, okleje swiezym
plastykiem. Zaczne splacac pozyczke, $ 3500.00 miesiecznie.
Po raz kolejny:
Zaden wydatek.

Spojrz, jesli mozesz, na to wszystko z tej perspektywy i przestan juz nudzic.
Nie dla kazdego wydatki na mieszkanie to liczaca sie suma w budzecie ,ktora mu
z oczu sen spedza.

Bedzie dosyc ...

[Gość: LastBoyScout]

>>>i moze nawet wpuszcze rentujacego do piwnicy.<<<

Koorwa , jak ja nie cierpie Lomzyniakow! .... :(

Co, karty z raczki wypadly ?! Tak myslalem.

[kadi-lak]

No widzisz, a tak plakales, ze jakies kompleksy ze mnie podobno wychodza.
A jak ci w koncu ktos prosto i dobitnie powiedzial o co chodzi w temacie to
juz ci wszystkie karty z raczki wypadly ?
Z dyskusji rezygnujeesz, poddajesz sie, bo nie przytlaczasz interlokutora swymi
infantylnymi argumentami?

Swego czasu zainwestowalem rowniez w edukacje, to sie takze oplacilo i to
bardzo.

Nie, nie jestem z Lomzy. Pochodze z duzego, polskiego miasta i ( moze
dlatego??) nie mam zadnych uprzedzen w stosunku do ludzi tylko dlatego, ze
pochodza skads tam.

Co, karty z raczki wypadly ?! Tak myslalem.

[kadi-lak]

No widzisz, a tak plakales, ze jakies kompleksy ze mnie podobno wychodza.
A jak ci w koncu ktos prosto i dobitnie powiedzial o co chodzi w temacie to
juz ci wszystkie karty z raczki wypadly ?
Z dyskusji rezygnujeesz, poddajesz sie, bo nie przytlaczasz interlokutora swymi
infantylnymi argumentami?

Swego czasu zainwestowalem rowniez w edukacje, to sie takze oplacilo i to
bardzo.

Nie, nie jestem z Lomzy. Pochodze z duzego, polskiego miasta i ( moze
dlatego??) nie mam zadnych uprzedzen w stosunku do ludzi tylko dlatego, ze
pochodza skads tam.

[Gość: LastBoyScout]

> Scenario nierealistyczne !

Czemu?
Jak sie nie oplaca to ludzie przestaja inwestowac w nieruchomosci i je
wynajmuja.
Wiec jeszcze raz: ILE WTEDY KADILAK ZAPLACI ZA SWOJ WYNAJM?


>>>Widzisz, standardowy Ameryaknain, mieszkaniec dekturkowego domku na
>>>przedmiesciach jest za glupi by samodzielnie inwestowac

Teraz mi KONIECZNIE wyjasnij SKAD glupi Amerykanin ma pieniadze na zatrudnienie
przy budowie i sprzataniu swojego domu madrego/przemadrzalego Polaka bankruta
skoro Amerykanin nie potrafi inwestowac a Polak potrafi inwestowac? ;)



> Daltego "inwestuja" w domy. Do tego wystarczy umiec sie podpisac.

Wyciagnales taki wniosek na podstawie swojej "inwestycji" w plaska ziemie kolo
Lomzy?
Coz, pozostaje ci zyczyc ...POWODZENIA w "inwestowaniu" ! ;)

[kadi-lak]

Gość portalu: LastBoyScout napisał(a):

> > Scenario nierealistyczne !
>
> Czemu?
> Jak sie nie oplaca to ludzie przestaja inwestowac w nieruchomosci i je
> wynajmuja.
> Wiec jeszcze raz: ILE WTEDY KADILAK ZAPLACI ZA SWOJ WYNAJM?

7.5% wiecej co dwa lata.


> Teraz mi KONIECZNIE wyjasnij SKAD glupi Amerykanin ma pieniadze na
zatrudnienie
>
> przy budowie i sprzataniu swojego domu madrego/przemadrzalego Polaka
bankruta
> skoro Amerykanin nie potrafi inwestowac a Polak potrafi inwestowac? ;)



Z wstawania co ranka i dygania do roboty do poznej starosci.



> Wyciagnales taki wniosek na podstawie swojej "inwestycji" w plaska ziemie
kolo
> Lomzy?

Tak.
Do tego jeszcze trzeba bylo umiec te ziemie wlasciwie wytypowiac, poszperac w
gminie co sie tam bedzie dziac i znalezc odpowiedni kawalek. Pozniej
rzeczywiscie wystarczylo kilka podpisow i kasa.
Trud sie oplacil, bo zwrot jest 300 % w ciagu roku. Nie liczac zwalki dolara
bo i na tym sporo trafilem.
Ale teraz jest juz czas na bardziej wyrafinowane inwestowanie. I juz na pewno
nie w nieruchomosci.

[Gość: LastBoyScout]

> > Wiec jeszcze raz: ILE WTEDY KADILAK ZAPLACI ZA SWOJ WYNAJM?
> 7.5% wiecej co dwa lata.

Kadilak, juz NIE MOZNA mniej wiedziec.
To ZUPELNE PODSTAWY:

Jezeli rosnie popyt na towar (wynajm) to przy stalej (a wrecz malejacej!)
podazy rosnie cena towaru (wynajmu).




> > Teraz mi KONIECZNIE wyjasnij SKAD glupi Amerykanin ma pieniadze na
> zatrudnienie przy budowie i sprzataniu swojego domu madrego/przemadrzalego
>Polaka bankruta

>>>Z wstawania co ranka i dygania do roboty do poznej starosci.

Wyliczmy szybko:
Amerykanin pracuje na siebie i Kadilaka oraz inwestuje.
Kadilak pracuje tylko na siebie u Amerykanina oraz inwestuje.
Hmmm... wyszedl mi MINUS zwrotu z inwestycji Kadilaka a nie plus 300%!
JAK to mozliwie? Gdzie moglo wkrasc sie PRZEKLAMANIE?!



> > Wyciagnales taki wniosek na podstawie swojej "inwestycji" w plaska ziemie
> kolo Lomzy?
>
> Tak.
> Do tego jeszcze trzeba bylo umiec te ziemie wlasciwie wytypowiac, poszperac w
> gminie co sie tam bedzie dziac i znalezc odpowiedni kawalek. Pozniej
> rzeczywiscie wystarczylo kilka podpisow i kasa.
> Trud sie oplacil, bo zwrot jest 300 % w ciagu roku.

Rozumiem wiec, ze wyjatkowo tylko w Ameryce inwestuje sie w nieruchomosci
wylacznie podpisem.
Milo mi, ze podzielasz moje zdanie, ze Ameryka jest WYJATKOWA! :)



>>Nie liczac zwalki dolara bo i na tym sporo trafilem.

Marze o tym aby poznac rozmiar i twojego bogactwa !



> Ale teraz jest juz czas na bardziej wyrafinowane inwestowanie.

Drze z niecierpliwosci aby poznac nowe dokonania inwestora o tak rozleglej
wiedzy inwestycyjnej.
Czy moge wiedziec NA CO WYDAJESZ swoje ogromne dochody oprocz wynajmu
mieszkania na Brooklyn'ie?

[Gość: hubert100]

Wypadki nie czeste ale sa.W Albercie poszly czynsze nawet 300%.Wyzucaja ludzi
na ulice bo "zamieniaja" mieszkania na konkominia i sprzedaja.Czy chcialbys
takiej "szarpaniny" wynajmujac? Chyba nie.

Lomza custom ?

[kadi-lak]

Gość portalu: LastBoyScout napisał(a):

> Amerykanin pracuje na siebie i Kadilaka oraz inwestuje.
> Kadilak pracuje tylko na siebie u Amerykanina oraz inwestuje.
> Hmmm... wyszedl mi MINUS zwrotu z inwestycji Kadilaka a nie plus 300%!
> JAK to mozliwie? Gdzie moglo wkrasc sie PRZEKLAMANIE?!

Najwyrazniej juz wali Ci kolba, przejdz sie po powietrzy , pogoda ladna, to sie
troche wyluzujesz.


>
> Drze z niecierpliwosci aby poznac nowe dokonania inwestora o tak rozleglej
> wiedzy inwestycyjnej.

A ja jakos w ogole nie mam ochoty Ciebie poznawac. Dosc wredny typ jestes i to
z Ciebie szybko wylazlo. Zawistnik pouczajacy innych jak zyc.

> Czy moge wiedziec NA CO WYDAJESZ swoje ogromne dochody oprocz wynajmu
> mieszkania na Brooklyn'ie?

A teraz to moze Ty mnie oswiec: SKAD TY pochodzisz, ze pytasz bez zenady
obcego czlowieka o to na co wydaje SWOJE WLASNE pieniedze? ?
To moja sprawa facet. Najwazniejsze ze nie musze liczyc kazdego grosza !!!

kadila, chłopaku to co piszesz jest zenujace.

[felusiak1]

Jeśli chcesz nabyć dom za 500 tysiecy to wystarczy na to mieć 100 tysiecy gotówki.
Nabycie akcji za 500 tysiecy wymaga posiadania 500 tysiecy.
Zatem jeśli ty kupiłeś akcje za 500 tys a ja kupiłem dom za 500 tys. to ja
wydałem tylko 100 tysiecy i za pozostałe 400 tys kupiłem identyczne akcje.
Gwarantuje ci, ze za 20 lat bedę znacznie od ciebie zamożniejszy.

[kadi-lak]

felusiak1 napisała:

> Jeśli chcesz nabyć dom za 500 tysiecy to wystarczy na to mieć 100 tysiecy
gotów
> ki.

Wystarczy nawet 0 gotowki.

> Nabycie akcji za 500 tysiecy wymaga posiadania 500 tysiecy.

A wcale ze nie ......

> Zatem jeśli ty kupiłeś akcje za 500 tys a ja kupiłem dom za 500 tys. to ja
> wydałem tylko 100 tysiecy i za pozostałe 400 tys kupiłem identyczne akcje.

A skad wiesz co ja kupilem ?

> Gwarantuje ci, ze za 20 lat bedę znacznie od ciebie zamożniejszy.

No, no, na, na ........................................
Uwazaj...........

to co piszesz jest zenujace.

[Gość: jytd]

za 20 lat horyzontu czasowego to ja ci felusiak gwarantuje ze bedziesz najwyzej
starszy i wlosy ci wypadna - bez gwarancji ze rozumu ci przybedzie.

a co do wartosci tych twoich akcji to ja bym sie nie wypowiadal, zwlaszcza, ze
zamiast kupowac akcje za gotowke, mogles je kupic na kredyt.

jednak niedzielni inwestorzy powinni chodzic na kursy wieczorowe

[Gość: hubert100]

Wypadki nie czeste ale sa.W Albercie poszly czynsze nawet 300%.Wyrzucaja ludzi
na ulice bo "zamieniaja" mieszkania na kondominja i sprzedaja.Czy chcialbys
takiej "szarpaniny" wynajmujac? Chyba nie.Tu musisz sie uniezaleznic od systemu
i dopasowac sie.Przyklad: moja "farma".Jak bym nie mial "Farm Status" to moje
property tax by bylo okolo $7000 rocznie ( moze $500 mniej jakbym zaoral tenis
court).Jako "farma" place $700. Mam znizke na benzyne,tanszy diesel, kazde
guwno odpisze i dostane zwrot GST.Aby miec ten "status" dochod z farmy
wystarczy aby byl $2670 brutto na rok.Przez pirwsze 5 lat szedlem "na stratach"
ale teraz juz farma przynosi dochody:$100 na rok.Moja "produkcja" to troche
kurczakow,orzechy laskowe,echinacea. Teraz pare swin bo dostaje "tony" chleba z
Gospel Mission.Nawet zadzwonili z Agriculture Canada z pytaniem ile ludzi
moge "wyzywic".Odpowiedzialem ze kilku ale takich co malo jedza.Jak to wszystko
jest mozliwe moze zapytacie? Dlatego ze wielu z Government"u, City i innych
influencial people tez ma takie "farmy" a oni sobie "galezi nie podetna".Tak
ze "prawa klamka" tez mysli po klamkowemu.

[Gość: hubert100]

LBS,I like you man.Nie wiem czy lubisz lowic ryby, ale jak by tak bylo to
rekomenduje Eagle Pointe Lodge.Miesci sie na granicy pomiedzy BC i Alaska.
Podobno najlepsze miejsce na swiecie na ryby.40 pounders salmon are the
norm.Drogi niema ale zawioza cie samolotem.Lodge luksusowa, all included,
najlepsze jedzenie,Oculus and Ice Wine from Okanagan Valley,(francuskie wino
sie chowa) single malt Scotch,Belweder i Chopen wodka na stole 24 godziny.Tam
jest miejsce spotkan the "Big Boys".Mozesz tam spotkac CEO'S kazdej olejowej
kompanii US i Kanady. Czesc tej lodge nalezy do bylego Premiera Alberty Ralf
Klain.Miejsce jest znane w pewnych kregach w Europie takze. Spotykaja sie tam
ludzie nie tylko od oleju.Moglbys spotkac Rick George ,Suncore Energy CEO.On
jest" Colorado boy" ale juz od 5 lat ma Kanadyjskie obywatelstwo.Rick jest
smart guy.Obserwuje czasami jego moves on TSX lub NYSE ,jak potrafi zrobic $50
000 in a single trade on Suncore stock. Zawsze trafi aby sprzedac na gorze i
kupic na dole. Oczywiscie to nie jest "insider trading". Rick wie co robi.Jak
by cie Rick naprzyklad polubil to moze bys nie potrzebowal czekac
na "wymrozenie czy zamrozenie" czy na inny podobny BS aby zarobic troche
grosza.Cena wycieczki przystepna tylko $4000 na tydzien pobytu.Mam nadzije ze
wlasciciel tej firmy finskiej tez lubi lowic ryby.Spotkanie z "Big Boys"
mogloby wyprodukowac multi miljonowe kontrakty.Wrazie czego jak bys sie uparl
ze brakuje ci zenskiego towarzystwa to ci nawet dowioza "lady" samolotem ale
to by bylo niedobrze widziane pomiedzy "boys".Mowiac o tych klamkach.Mysle ze
to dobry omen.Kiedys ta finska firma na zlecenie Yukos Oil zrobila do ich
wiezowca w Moskwie okna z klamkami powleczonymi 24K zlotem. Tak wiec ja
poleruje ta maja klamke a nuz zaswieci zlotem? Powiedz jakbys chcial jechac bo
o miejsce nie latwo.

Do tych, co ciagle nie zalapali

[kadi-lak]

(Skroty)Farewell to a Real-Estate-Funded Retirement

On a midweek afternoon, Carol got a call from a prospect who said he and his
wife were just outside one of the houses and wanted to see the interior. The
only hitch: The house is an hour's drive from where the Daimlers live. The
caller said he'd wait, so Carol and Steve jumped in the car. But by the time
they arrived, the phantom buyers had disappeared - the frantic trip was a bust.

To this day, the properties remain unsold, draining nearly $6,000 a month from
the Daimlers' dwindling retirement kitty. The couple had thought the properties
would help finance the lovely new life they planned to lead in Florida. They
had retired from their jobs - Steve was a sales executive and Carol a benefits
consultant - and moved to Florida to be closer to David and twins Mark and
Nicole, 13, their oldest daughter's kids.

To supplement their retirement savings of $260,000, they figured they'd buy
fixer-upper homes to renovate, then sell at a profit in the state's hot housing
market. "We thought we'd make $100,000 without batting an eye," says Carol.

But when the housing bubble burst, so did their dreams of a real-estate funded
retirement. The properties have been on the market for nine months without a
serious offer, and the carrying costs are killer: The Daimlers pay more than
$65,000 a year on their mortgages (including loans for their primary residence
and a vacation house in North Carolina), plus tens of thousands more for
property taxes, insurance and maintenance.

The couple are pulling out $15,000 a month from savings to cover their
expenses, and they've already run through more than half of their nest egg. The
irony: On paper they seem to be in great shape, with a net worth of $1.6
million. But since most of that money is tied up in real estate - assets they
can't easily sell - it doesn't ease their current cash crunch.

Money is so tight that Carol has stopped filling prescriptions for her
cholesterol medicine. Steve says he has no choice but to go back to work. "The
financial pressure is too great," he says.

The Daimlers are certainly not the only retirees to have miscalculated
financially. In fact, nearly two-thirds of workers who retired and subsequently
returned to work say they went back because they needed the income.

But being in good company is no comfort to the couple. "We're in this beautiful
area and see our neighbors doing fun things like cruises, golfing and going to
the country club, and we can't enjoy any of it," says a frustrated Carol.

Watching their savings drain away, she admits, "is scary." Worst of all, Steve
confesses quietly: "I feel like I've let down Carol and the kids." She
counters, "We both made this decision, but now it feels like a failure."

Putting faith in real estate

Of course, when home prices were rising fast - especially in hot spots like
Daytona Beach - the Daimlers' plan to turn a quick profit flipping houses
seemed to make sense. Especially since, unlike many hopeful flippers, the
couple were experienced home buyers and investors.

The high school sweethearts - Steve spotted Carol at a pizza parlor across from
their Long Island high school - bought their first house at 19, shortly after
they married. It was in Florida, where Steve was working as a technician at the
Kennedy Space Center.

When the couple moved back to New York seven years later, they sold the house
for a $10,000 profit and bought a fixer-upper. Four years later they sold that
house too and bought a more spacious home in northern Virginia, where they
settled down to raise their two daughters and son (now ages 38 to 42).

Shortly after the move, Steve changed careers and began selling computers.
Eventually he became a sales director, earning about $150,000 a year. Carol
focused on raising the kids when they were young, later getting her real estate
license. By 1991, though, she was working for the state of Virginia as a
disability case consultant, raising their income to $200,000 a year.

The family lived well but not lavishly. They saved enough to put the kids
through college without loans and steadily put away money for their own
retirement too - although not enough, they readily admit. But they weren't
worried because they had made a conscious decision to finance their retirement
largely through real estate investments.

"I know you should have a diversified portfolio," says Steve. "But I believed
real estate would give us bigger returns." In 1986 the couple bought their
first investment properties - two townhouses near their home in Springfield,
Va. - using money Carol inherited from her mom.

In the early 1990's they sold one of the houses and used the proceeds to build
a vacation home in the Outer Banks. Current estimated value: $900,000. They
sold the other townhouse in 2001 and used the money to add on to their Virginia
home, which they sold in 2005 for nearly $700,000.

A life-changing move

The idea of retiring and moving to Florida came to the Daimlers after a family
Christmas gathering at their home in 2004. When their grandkids, then 7 and 11,
went home to Daytona Beach after the holidays, Steve and Carol were heartbroken.

"They seemed to be growing up so fast, and we were missing out," says Steve.
Plus, he'd become weary of the extensive job-related travel that kept him away
from home for long stretches.

To supplement their savings, the couple planned to launch a sideline business,
buying houses in need of a little TLC, fixing them up and then selling them for
a profit. "We knew prices wouldn't keep going up like they had been," says
Steve. "But we figured with demand from baby boomers retiring, homes in Florida
would keep appreciating."

Carol quit her job first, in the spring of 2005. Shortly after, the couple sold
their house in Virginia and paid cash for their retirement dream home: a
$640,000, 3,700-square-foot house with a game room and an in-ground pool in a
gated community in Port Orange, south of Daytona Beach.

The couple took real estate investing courses online and joined the Central
Florida Realty Investors Association to network with local experts. When Steve
retired in March 2006, their daughter, an area real estate agent, helped them
search for properties to launch their business.

Exactly how fast the local real estate market was deteriorating wasn't clear in
August when the Daimlers bought two three-bedroom, two-bath houses: one in a
Daytona gated community for $235,000; the other in Palm Coast for $120,000.

To finance the purchases, they took out a $400,000 mortgage on their home. They
spent $31,000 on renovations and listed the houses in September. But since then
the market has been flooded with homes for sale, and the Daimlers have been
caught in the changing current.

They've tried every strategy they can think of: holding dozens of open houses;
offering a higher-than-usual 4 percent commission to buyers' agents;
distributing brochures; running thousands of dollars' worth of newspaper ads;
lowering the prices on the homes by $40,000; and offering rent-to-own and other
financing options.

They've met with countless buyers but have yet to close a deal. Time and money
are running out. The Daimlers' only income is the $36,000 a year they get from
renting their vacation house in peak season. They're reluctant to tap Carol's
small $25,000 lump-sum government pension. Plus, they're too young to collect
Social Security. And they have $31,000 in credit-card debt from the renovations
of the investment properties.

Perhaps worst of all, they're so busy trying to sell the houses, they see their
grandkids - the primary motivation for the move - only once a month.

With just $120,000 left in his 401(k), now all in money-market funds, Steve
decided in Ma

bzdetujesz na potege

[felusiak1]

nawet nie czytasz co wklejasz.....

[Gość: hubert100]

Dom powinien byc przeznaczony do mieszkania a nie do spekulacji.Tu wszystko
jest na gownie zbudowane.Jeden patrzy jak to by mozna bylo wy.. drugiego az
w koncu sie wyjebia wszyscy.Teraz jest jeszcze jeden problem, chyba najwiekszy:
jak ukrasc ta resztke ropy naftowej? Jak sie nie uda to beda jaja i to
kwadratowe.Juz teraz oszczedzaja jak sie da aby wlac do baku.Niedlugo baby
pojda na ulice dupy dawac aby bylo za co kupic benzyne.Szkoda Felusiak ze ci
wisi, tak bys sobie poruchal za banke paliwa.

[Gość: hubert100]

Natura zawsze jakos wyrownuje.Felusiak czesto wspomina o tych "bzdetach". Chyba
chodzi o to ze pomimo ze przod mu wysiadl ale dupa pracuje, i to dobrze.Czasami
musze odejsc ad tego komputera jak go czytam bo smierdzi w calym pokoju, tak
napierdzial.

[Gość: hubert100]

W Globe and Mail jest artykul o Polsce.Nie czytalem ale chodzi o to ze Polska
zrobila super balagan w dobie po komunizmie.Sa dwa rysunki tych co ich
nazywacie "kaczorow".Lby maja szersze jak dluzsze, jak te "Cabbage Patch". To
juz Osiol LBS lepiej by wygladal.Thanks heaven ze mam troche krwi niemieckiej
bo inaczej bym byl jednym z tych clown'ow w rodzaju Felusiaka, LBS nie mowiac
juz o super palancie Jorlu.

Home, sweet home- the worse investment ever

[kadi-lak]

My fellow Fool John Rosevear considers a house to be the best investment ever.
I disagree. A house is a place to live, not a road to riches.
Think about it for a minute. What characteristics do Fools look for in a great
investment? Positive cash flow, low expense ratios, low transaction fees, and
historically proven returns. Using these criteria, the average house falls well
short of the all-time best.

If you buy a house, how much money goes into your pockets every year? How much
goes out? That's right