All Forum Posts by: Vladimir K.

Originally posted by J Scott:

...

Are you saying that Fox News is not a reliable journalistic source? If others here agree that Fox News is not a reliable source of information, I'll retract my comments; but I'm under the impression that most people here feel Fox News is a trustworthy news organization, and that there is little reason to question facts that they provide.

Were Fox News Journalists providing facts and stating as facts links to terrorism or were they simply raising the question?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner

I did not find Fox News proving or alleging a proven link between the shareholder and terrorism finance, so I think you can trust Fox News. :wink:

I think that the question about where the money for the Ground Zero mosque came from is a legitimate one, don't you?

Originally posted by J Scott:

As for the war...

The terrorists were all Saudis. Their leader was Saudi. They were backed by Saudi money.

So, who should we have gone to war with? Iraq, obviously!

Hm... using your logic, we should not have gone to Afghanistan either. Should we? None of the Afghans attacked us. And Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 directly.

Originally posted by J Scott:

Oh wait...

You think 18% of Americans thinking Obama is Muslim means anything?

Uh... which Christian Church is Obama a member of at this time? According to him, he missed most of the sermons of his Chicago TUCC Church.

Oh.. and Hussein is definitely a Christian name... right! Just like the names Ahmed and/or Muhammad.

Originally posted by J Scott:

Back in 2003, 70% of Americans thought there was a link between Iraq and 9/11 (probably a lot still do). And now here we are 8 years and $800B later with 5000 Americans.

Americans are gullible (goes back to the horrible educational system), and when our politicians are looking for an excuse to do something (like invade Iraq for personal retribution and monetary gain), it's not too difficult to get us on-board.

Check out fact check for a summary of what Americans taught and believed in 2003, including senior Democratic leadership.

http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

[i]In 2004 the Senate Intelligence Committee said, in a report adopted unanimously by both Republican and Democratic members:

Senate Intelligence Committee: The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.†(p273)[/i]

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Originally posted by J Scott:

Originally posted by Rich Weese:

I guess I'll watch the lowlights on Fox News...

According to Fox News, their second largest shareholder funds terrorism...are you sure you want to help their ratings and in the process put more money in the hands of the terrorists?

Let's get some facts straight here please.

Fox News is owned by News Corp, whose 2nd largest shareholder is the Kingdom Holdings, owned by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

Al-Waleed owns a whopping.... 7% interest in the News Corp. You are right that they are 2nd largest shareholder, but I felt that some perspective was important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation
* Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, through his Kingdom Holding Company, owns 7% of News Corp.'s shares, making Kingdom Holdings the second largest shareholder.[23][24][25]

Secondly, I think you need to show more proof that this organization is funding terrorism. I don't think many people on the left or the right are buying it. The link to terrorism comes from the allegation that the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is connected to terrorism. And Prince Al-Waleed funded one of Rauf's project to the tune of 300K.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner

Btw, Imam Rauf is the same Imam who is the principal planner for the Manhattan Islamic Center and our current President is all for him building a mosque near the place where the Twin Towers once stood.

Now, if it's true that Feisal Abdul Rauf is connected to terrorism why is the left so adamant about letting him build an Islamic center near Ground Zero?

And if Rauf is just a worshiper in the religion of peace, why accuse Fox News of supporting terrorism?

Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:

Given that there is such a liquid market of buyers online I was wondering what people's thoughts are on the commission paid to Realtors. A 6% commission has always seemed scandalously high to me given the typical amount of service one receives on a listing.

I would love to hear the opinion of others on the matter...including the Realtor's take.

Hey Bryan, I don't like the question about the price of someone's services or product because it implies that the fees must be regulated somehow.

The reality, at least in the Real Estate Industry, is that the fees are negotiable. If you can find a broker who will list you home for free, more power to you (I know of at least one agent who will sell your home for free, you'll pay only the co-op which will be reduced to zero if the same agent finds a buyer, as long as you buy your next property through them). And that's okay.

But I don't like the idea of regulating commissions.

Secondly, I would venture to say that no matter what you do for a living, the chances are that there will *always* be someone able and willing to do what you are doing for less money. Sometimes for much less money. Not trying to step on your toes, just my observation. If there is a person making 500k year, there is probably another person making 50K year that will spend more time and give more of themselves to earn 250K given the chance and the opportunity to do the same job as the 500k year earner .

If one is an electrical engineer with 10 years experience and another is a recent college graduate just starting to wok as an engineer, there is a big probability that the college graduate can grasp new ideas better than the 10 year experienced employee, yet, their pay scales would be different. Same goes for doctors, nurses, etc...

Experience helps, but if the less experienced is willing to learn, they can become better faster than the one they are competing against for less money.

Does it mean that it's unfair to pay more money for experience? Perhaps, but I'd prefer to let the market decide this one.

In summary, everyone's pay can be questioned and in some respect rightfully so. Is it fair for a baseball player or a basketball player to make millions dollars per year, for playing a sport, while there are people working 60-80 week fixing houses that are only earning 100K (if they are lucky)?

Is it fair that a contractor working on repairing a house makes less money than the investor who is providing the capital, and funds the acquisition with another's funds?

Now, I’m always told that RE investing works anywhere. And to some degree, that’s true. However, what is not mentioned that not ALL types of investing work anywhere.

For example, someone who wants to invest ‘SUBJECT TO’, by taking over payments from owners who have zero to little equity in their homes, must realize that they will have a much harder time finding these ‘upside down’ owners in older neighborhoods, where most residents have their loan balances paid off or just about paid off.

Rehabbing would probably be a better strategy to pursue in OLDER, more established neighborhoods.

However, here is another problem. In the area where I'm from (Chicagoland), the market is pretty much saturated with investors or investor wannabe's (like myself). This influx of cash and buyers is good, on one hand, as you are almost guaranteed to sell a house at or above the Fair Market Value (FMV). However, the negative side is that even a house that needs 10K in work/updates will sell for the FMV or slightly below as well. So the investor gets outbid by newbies and potential homeowners.

Now, I’m into rehabbing myself. I’d like to be able to turn an ugly house into a beautiful home and make a nice paycheck doing that. So what should I do?

Should I just go after foreclosures, expired listings and other motivated situations in my hot market or should I look into cooler markets elsewhere (within 90 miles of my home, where rehabs are still Listed on the MLS close to 70% LTV, or better)

Now, another issue in hot markets is that the rents don’t match the mortgage payments, unless you go with the 1-5 year balloon, interest only mortgage, and even then, your cashflow is minimal (100-200/mo), so if a tenant trashes your home, you’ll be hurting pretty bad.

On the other hand, the cooler markets have rents that exceed the mortgage payment (which baffles me, as I think why would anyone rent if they can own for less?). For example, 60K home on the MLS rents for $700/mo. So, if I find a home that is cheaper, my cashflow will be better in case I can't sell it quickly AND my loan will be fixed for 30 years.

So… question for your pros. If you live in a hot seller’s market, like mine, do you invest elsewhere or do you look for deals in your own back yard?

Sorry for writing a book and I appreciate any feedback you provide.

Regards,

Vlad Realtor-Investor
www.VladSellsHomes.com