The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

Bruddah IZ said:
The bank pays you value? Lmao! Put that on your income statement. Kek!
Click to expand...
We can disagree on whether fronting me 80% of my house value, taking 0% of the house’s appreciation and letting me pay off at only 3+ percent over a long time is “paying me value.” My experience suggests that it’s excellent value.
I’m grateful for the opportunity every day and even more so when I sell!
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Yes they do. Now do the exercise and see how much of your monthly payment goes to interest in an amortization schedule.
Click to expand...
Why do you care so much how much of my payments is interest? I get all of the increase in asset value anyway and I deduct the interest, not the principal.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
You apparently don't know that the words "amortization achedule” already have mathematical, legal, and accounting meanings to the civilized world.
Click to expand...
Ya know, home ownership isn’t for everyone. You seem not to like the deal that’s offered by banks (I.e. secured mortgages) as being too good for the bank and, I guess by extension, not good enough for you. So you should avoid it.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Of course the court considers a house an asset. For the bank. They get paid first like they have been throughout the loan process. Everybody else gets paid next if there are any proceeds after all liabilities have been paid. Kek!
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. I've been executor on estates. One does not list the "domicile" as a bank asset. I've had to sue folks who have used bankruptcy protection. The court does not require the bankrupt protected party to list "domicile" as a "bank asset."

There is "asset" - the "domicile."
And "Liability" - any mortgage/HELOC or other note secured by the "domicile."

But then again, you think the Fed owns a printing press, so, not surprising you don't understand how that works, shoeless lederhosen boi.
 
Friesland said:
You're an idiot. I've been executor on estates. One does not list the "domicile" as a bank asset. I've had to sue folks who have used bankruptcy protection. The court does not require the bankrupt protected party to list "domicile" as a "bank asset."

There is "asset" - the "domicile."
And "Liability" - any mortgage/HELOC or other note secured by the "domicile."

But then again, you think the Fed owns a printing press, so, not surprising you don't understand how that works, shoeless lederhosen boi.
Click to expand...
Poor guy must have tried buying a house once and got “throwed out” by the dastardly bankers! So ever since he thinks the bank owns people’s houses. How’s that dust bowl era treating you, Iz? Not so great, huh?
 
BTW the calculation on whether it makes more financial sense to rent vs. buying is easy to make.

The "break even point" even absent appreciation is generally 4 to 8 years depending on rent and upkeep costs.

Almost anyone staying in their "domicile" more than 10 years will find it cheaper to own than to rent.
 
messy said:
Poor guy must have tried buying a house once and got “throwed out” by the dastardly bankers! So ever since he thinks the bank owns people’s houses. How’s that dust bowl era treating you, Iz? Not so great, huh?
Click to expand...
If you buy the standard 20% in equity at closing, its hard to get “throwed out” if youʻre making payments according to your amortization schedule.
 
Friesland said:
You're an idiot. I've been executor on estates. One does not list the "domicile" as a bank asset. I've had to sue folks who have used bankruptcy protection. The court does not require the bankrupt protected party to list "domicile" as a "bank asset."

There is "asset" - the "domicile."
And "Liability" - any mortgage/HELOC or other note secured by the "domicile."

But then again, you think the Fed owns a printing press, so, not surprising you don't understand how that works, shoeless lederhosen boi.
Click to expand...
The executor doesnʻt determine what an asset is. That is already done by those that designated you as an executor. Kek
 
messy said:
Ya know, home ownership isn’t for everyone. You seem not to like the deal that’s offered by banks (I.e. secured mortgages) as being too good for the bank and, I guess by extension, not good enough for you. So you should avoid it.
Click to expand...
Actually I do consider my liability to have unrealized value. You just call it an asset with value. Whatever works for you works even better for the bank. In case you havenʻt noticed.
 
Friesland said:
BTW the calculation on whether it makes more financial sense to rent vs. buying is easy to make.

The "break even point" even absent appreciation is generally 4 to 8 years depending on rent and upkeep costs.

Almost anyone staying in their "domicile" more than 10 years will find it cheaper to own than to rent.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he will understand that. He’s too fixated on the bank’s good deal. LOL.
 
messy said:
Whatever that means.
Click to expand...
1. It means that homes that you bought in the past would have had the same value whether you called them a liability or an asset. 2. A rental ,a.k.a an asset, might net you some monthly income too, prior to the sale. 3. A non-rental has unrealized value.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
1. It means that homes that you bought in the past would have had the same value whether you called them a liability or an asset. 2. A rental ,a.k.a an asset, might net you some monthly income too, prior to the sale. 3. A non-rental has unrealized value.
Click to expand...
1. So true! For that matter, whether you called them a chair or a table! They just happen to be assets. Valuable ones.
 
messy said:
I don’t think he will understand that. He’s too fixated on the bank’s good deal. LOL.
Click to expand...
You're paying the bank according to an amortization schedule so you don't have to pay rent. A savings you say? Not if the landlord is trying to net some income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top