NYOB,
One of the problems with Harry and others with NPD is they actually believe
he will read it and will resign.

--

Starbuck

.... Get your filthy hands off my dessert!
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

An alternative: write a letter to George W. Bush at the White House
and ask him to resign immediately for the good of the country and its
people.

Do you really think Rove would take the time to read him that letter?

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:44:20 -0400, P Fritz wrote:


There wouldn't be much need for contributions, no doubt most would be
covered by insurance, unlike the liebral types that think the guvmint is
there to bail them out.

Uh, would that be flood insurance? I believe that *is* a government bail
out.

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
I've been on the fence on how to advise him. Part of me believes as you
do: that $340k villa will drop in price once a correction knocks the
speculators out of the market. But if I'm wrong, then where does he
live? If he pays the $340k now, and then it drops, he can just stay in
it until it goes back up again.


Rent cheap and put money into a residential REIT

I don't know anything about REIT's. Can you see 30-50% returns like we're
currently seeing in the real estate market?

And are they any safer than actually owning the real estate?


You haven't seen any "return" until you sell. You have seen other
people realize a return, and you believe, by extension, that you would
be able to realize a return if you chose to sell. All of your equity is
theoretical.
Of course, if you do sell, the only ways you can actually extract any
value
are 1) forego home ownership and become a tenant, 2) reduce the
"quality" of your lifestyle by moving to a smaller, older, home or one
in a questionable neighborhood, 3)relocate to some hill town in the
Ozarks or Sage Brush City Oklahoma. If you replace your house with
another that is about the same or bigger, newer, and nicer in the same
area you will plow all of your sales "proceeds" into the new house, and
simply be deeper in debt than you are now.


I recently had coffee with a guy who was excited about his house in
Seattle.
He began boasting about how the house for which he paid $250,000 in the
early 90's is now worth about 4 times that amount. I said, "Well,
congrats.
But unless you sell, of course, you can't really spend any of that
money."

I had to bite my tongue when he answered, "Oh, yes, you can! I just
took out a home equity loan for $700,000 and we're buying a new
45-footer and a Land Rover."

Poor guy. He doesn't realize that he just "repurchased" that house (for
which he initially paid $250,000) for the $700,000 he just borrowed
against it. He actually did have to sell his house......he sold it to
himself.

A REIT spreads the risk across a spectrum of properties and geographic
areas. While it doesn't put all its assets into an unsustainably
booming market like Naples, the trust is also more insulated against
the implosion of a single overheated housing bubble.

Putting all your eggs into a single basket makes no more sense in R.E.
than it does in the stock market or any other speculative enterprise.

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:44:20 -0400, P Fritz wrote:



There wouldn't be much need for contributions, no doubt most would be
covered by insurance, unlike the liebral types that think the guvmint is
there to bail them out.


Uh, would that be flood insurance? I believe that *is* a government bail
out.


Ah..that Frizzle! A laugh a minute!

Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans comes out tomorrow.

There are a handful of well-to-do public figures who either failed to
make the list, or have been displaced. Among the missing this year will
be Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, the casino owner
Nielsen, and Teresa Heinz Kerry.

I'm sure there's no truth to the rumor that some of these luminaries
have been nudged into relative asset oblivion by owners of those cookie
cutter McMansions scattered around the cul-de-sacs of suburban Naples.
AFAIK, you need a net worth of at least a $billion to make the list,
and achieving that would require the purchase of perhaps two houses in
Naples and then waiting another 18-24 months. :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...

Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans comes out tomorrow.

There are a handful of well-to-do public figures who either failed to
make the list, or have been displaced. Among the missing this year will
be Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, the casino owner
Nielsen, and Teresa Heinz Kerry.

I'm sure there's no truth to the rumor that some of these luminaries
have been nudged into relative asset oblivion by owners of those cookie
cutter McMansions scattered around the cul-de-sacs of suburban Naples.
AFAIK, you need a net worth of at least a $billion to make the list,
and achieving that would require the purchase of perhaps two houses in
Naples and then waiting another 18-24 months. :-)


Can someone pass me the popcorn? ;-)

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
I've been on the fence on how to advise him. Part of me believes as
you
do: that $340k villa will drop in price once a correction knocks the
speculators out of the market. But if I'm wrong, then where does he
live? If he pays the $340k now, and then it drops, he can just stay
in
it until it goes back up again.


Rent cheap and put money into a residential REIT

I don't know anything about REIT's. Can you see 30-50% returns like
we're
currently seeing in the real estate market?

And are they any safer than actually owning the real estate?


You haven't seen any "return" until you sell. You have seen other
people realize a return, and you believe, by extension, that you would
be able to realize a return if you chose to sell. All of your equity is
theoretical.
Of course, if you do sell, the only ways you can actually extract any
value
are 1) forego home ownership and become a tenant, 2) reduce the
"quality" of your lifestyle by moving to a smaller, older, home or one
in a questionable neighborhood, 3)relocate to some hill town in the
Ozarks or Sage Brush City Oklahoma. If you replace your house with
another that is about the same or bigger, newer, and nicer in the same
area you will plow all of your sales "proceeds" into the new house, and
simply be deeper in debt than you are now.


I recently had coffee with a guy who was excited about his house in
Seattle.
He began boasting about how the house for which he paid $250,000 in the
early 90's is now worth about 4 times that amount. I said, "Well,
congrats.
But unless you sell, of course, you can't really spend any of that
money."

I had to bite my tongue when he answered, "Oh, yes, you can! I just
took out a home equity loan for $700,000 and we're buying a new
45-footer and a Land Rover."

So he bought a million dollar house for $700k...and got a free 45' boat and
a Land Rover to boot. You shouldn't be feeling sorry for him.


Poor guy. He doesn't realize that he just "repurchased" that house (for
which he initially paid $250,000) for the $700,000 he just borrowed
against it. He actually did have to sell his house......he sold it to
himself.

So he bought a million dollar house for $700k...and got a free 45' boat and
a Land Rover to boot. You shouldn't be feeling sorry for him. He got a
helluva deal.



A REIT spreads the risk across a spectrum of properties and geographic
areas. While it doesn't put all its assets into an unsustainably
booming market like Naples, the trust is also more insulated against
the implosion of a single overheated housing bubble.

Putting all your eggs into a single basket makes no more sense in R.E.
than it does in the stock market or any other speculative enterprise.


Please send me some info on REIT's that you've looked at or invested in.
I'd like to explore them as an option for further diversification of my
portfolio.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans comes out tomorrow.

There are a handful of well-to-do public figures who either failed to
make the list, or have been displaced. Among the missing this year will
be Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, the casino owner
Nielsen, and Teresa Heinz Kerry.

I'm sure there's no truth to the rumor that some of these luminaries
have been nudged into relative asset oblivion by owners of those cookie
cutter McMansions scattered around the cul-de-sacs of suburban Naples.
AFAIK, you need a net worth of at least a $billion to make the list,
and achieving that would require the purchase of perhaps two houses in
Naples and then waiting another 18-24 months. :-)

I wonder how many of them will be attending the Naples Wine Fest on the next
go-around:


Naples Winter Wine Festival: Published Articles

How Naples, Florida, Bested Napa, California, At Its Wine Game
By JULIA FLYNN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

June 24, 2005; Page A1
NAPA, Calif. -- The Napa Valley Wine Auction, where a six-liter bottle
of cabernet sauvignon once sold for a half-million dollars, was the grande
dame of charity wine auctions for nearly a quarter century. Founded in 1981,
it drew moneyed oenophiles, celebrity chefs and Hollywood stars to this wine
region for a long weekend each June.

But Napa's great success inspired others to get into the same game.
And last year, the three-year-old Naples Winter Wine Festival trumpeted
itself as "the world's top charity wine event" after it said it raised $7.67
million for a long list of charities. Napa said it had raised only $5.3
million.

Naples, the one in Florida, is a city built partly on reclaimed swamp,
and it isn't known for viticulture. Nor, indeed, is Florida. Napa's pride
was dented.

Vowing a comeback, the Napa Valley Vintners, the powerful group of
winery owners behind the Napa auction, did some soul-searching. Among their
conclusions: Napa's auction had grown too big and too boring, and it
sometimes didn't treat billionaires as well as it might have.

The organizers did a radical makeover, tripling ticket prices to make
the auction more exclusive and hiring Jay Leno as an opener. Naples "really
put the bug in our ear," says Margrit Biever Mondavi, one of the 24
co-chairpersons of Napa's event and a member of the Mondavi wine family.

Jay Leno sells a custom-made cork jacket worn by Robert Mondavi at
this year's Auction Napa Valley.

One evening earlier this month, under a tent on a golf fairway, Napa
opened the auction meant to take back its rightful role as the pre-eminent
charity wine auction in America. The auction got off to a promising start: A
surprise first item, a dinner jacket made of wine corks, far exceeded
expectations by selling for $95,000. Other strong bidding followed. "This is
a performer's dream," said Mr. Leno as the auction got rolling: "Rich people
who've been drinking."

Recapturing the crown was key for the Napa Valley Vintners, who had
used their auction's high profile to market Napa as a wine lover's Eden. It
had long been a prestigious social event, drawing international media
attention and regulars like former baseball star Rusty Staub and "Sex and
the City" actor Kyle MacLachlan. People paid $2,500 a couple to attend.

By 2001, there were hundreds of other charity wine auctions in the
U.S. None came close to Napa's. And no one in Napa felt threatened when a
group of oenophiles announced they would start an auction in Naples.

But Naples organizers, a well-connected group of eighteen couples,
aimed to get big. The year before, they had gathered intelligence at Napa's
2000 auction, taking notes and quietly chatting with attendees. The Naples
crew spotted weaknesses. Napa had swelled to about 2,500 guests, making it
noisy and less elite. Big bidders wanted to consort with vintners and
winemakers, not the marketing staff they tripped over in Napa.

So Naples kept attendance to a few hundred, charging $5,000 a couple,
twice what Napa charged. It kept pre-auction "hospitality" events, in which
bidders mingle with vintners, much smaller than Napa's.

Naples faced one hurdle: Naples itself, located on the Gulf of Mexico
in Southwest Florida. "Obviously, Naples is not Napa," says Jeff Gargiulo, a
Naples founder. "You won't see any grapes growing around here." The group at
first had trouble persuading top vintners and celebrity chefs to attend. So
they lined up private jets to fly in some attendees. They lured a few
big-name vintners to help draw others. A big catch was Dick Grace, a Napa
cult-wine producer. "When we brought Dick Grace here, we got instant
credibility," says Mr. Gargiulo, a Napa vintner, who hails from Naples and
is the chief executive officer of Sunkist Growers Inc.

Naples's first auction, in 2001, raised $2.7 million, according to its
figures. That wasn't enough to concern Napa vintners, some of whom attended
the Florida event. Nor was the $3.4 million that Naples said it raised in
2002; Napa said it raised $6.1 million that year. "I'd never even heard of
Naples, Fla.," says vintner Stu Smith, a co-chairperson of the recent Napa
auction.

But Napa couldn't ignore Naples after February 2003. Naples's third
auction, promoters said, raised $5.1 million, close to Napa's previous
reported take. Four months later, the Napa auction reportedly raised $6.4
million, and Napa's bidders and vintners aired some gripes in a survey
following the auction.

The two events account differently for their total takes. Napa says
its total doesn't include ticket sales, which help underwrite the event. The
Naples organizers say they included ticket sales in some years and that many
of the costs are underwritten by trustees and sponsors. The competing
auctions have accepted each other's official numbers. Napa officials say
they are aware of the accounting difference but don't challenge Naples's
claims.

The Napa vintners decided to revamp the auction, appointing 24
chairpeople so no one would be singled out should the effort flop. Some of
those who had attended Naples's 2004 auction made comparisons. Naples's
auction was briefer. It treated its 600 guests to elegant soirees at
founders' homes, while Napa's 2,000 guests faced a noisy and impersonal ball
under a tent. Napa's auction "was just getting too long, and there were too
many people," says Ms. Biever Mondavi.

And Naples did more to pamper its guests. Naples put vintners up at
the local Ritz Carlton; Napa's guests were on their own for lodging. Naples
moved attendees between venues in stretch limousines; Napa used buses.
Naples greeted dignitaries at the airport with cheerleaders and a marching
band.

On a corporate-jet ride back to California, the Napa group decided
that they would push for change. It wasn't in time to keep the crown:
According to its numbers, Napa's 2004 event raised $5.3 million, versus the
$7.6 million Naples said it had raised in February.

Napa spent the next months revamping. It tossed the crowded ball in
favor of Naples-inspired intimate parties. It cut the live auction to four
hours, from six, and hired chauffeured cars for big bidders. It raised
admission to $7,500 a couple and changed the name of the event to Auction
Napa Valley. To add buzz, Napa hired Mr. Leno and brought together Peter and
Robert Mondavi, the nonagenarian brothers famed for the feud that estranged
them after Robert punched Peter in 1965. "We've learned some things from
Naples," says Barbara Shafer, a co-chairperson of the Napa event. Her family
owns Shafer Vineyards, a prestigious winery in Napa Valley.

Still, ticket sales were sluggish, forcing Napa to cancel some events.
Calling the high price "a dumb idea," co-chair Mr. Smith and others prepared
for a rout. But auction day dawned brighter. The pampering had paid off in
pre-auction events. "The more important bidders were recognized rather than
being buried in the crowd," says billionaire vintner Jess Jackson, the
founder of Kendall-Jackson, who attended both the Naples and Napa auctions
in 2005.

Mid-auction, Napa looked to have a chance. The number to beat was
$11.1 million, Naples's reported February take before ticket sales, and most
lots were selling for more than expected. A barrel from the formerly feuding
Mondavis fetched $401,000. ("Hang on," Mr. Leno wisecracked: "The brothers
have started punching each other again!") A lot featuring a bit part on
"Desperate Housewives" sold twice, for a total of $580,000.

When the last gavel fell, cannons shot confetti over the crowd. The
next day came Napa's final tally: $10.5 million. Naples had kept the crown
by a $600,000 margin. Linda Reiff, executive director of the Napa group,
says Napa won't dispute Naples's claim to the crown because "it's not worth
it for us to get into a back-and-forth."

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:19:17 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
You think retirees with less income than they had when working,
who
are looking for less expense, less driving, and closer care, are
going
to buy increasingly expensive & expansive homes?
NOYB wrote:
I think you don't have a clear understanding of the average Naples
retiree's financial situation. Less expense isn't exactly a top
priority to someone worth $10, 50 or 100 million.

1,400 properties sold in Collier County for more than $1 million
from
January through August of this year.
What that tells me is that the people who are going to make money
are
the people who 1- sell those homes and collect commission (and the
appraisers, insurers, etc etc)
2- bought into the market several years ago.

Buying into a hot market because it's going up like a rocket is not
generally how one makes a large profit. Not in the stock market, not
in
a crap game, and not in real estate.

The fact that real estate has run up far faster than inflation over
the
past few years is a good indication that 1- inflation is going to
pick
up (after all housing costs are a big part of the consumer spending
"basket")
2- it is *less* likely to outpace inflation over the coming years
(nothing goes up & up & up forever & ever..



I currently put away $25,000+ per year in qualified pension
plans...and
have done so since 1999.
That's a good move. Of course, it really depends on having a gov't
that
doesn't simply confiscate wealth from people who were wise enough to
save up (ie a very different gov't from the one we have now).


Water access is very difficult down here. If we had adequate ramps
and
marinas, I'd be living in a less expensive house inland.

So, if boating is important to you, move to place where marinas are
cheaper.

The most important vote is cast with one's feet.

Affordable areas in Florida don't exist anymore. But if by some
miracle
you happen to find one, the people living there have no money for
dentistry...nor do most of them have teeth.


That's not true. There are plenty of affordable homes in NE Florida,
and
far better medical practitioners than you are going to find in an area
like yours with no major university hospital center. In fact, the best
hospitals in Florida outside of Miami if you have a serious problem is
in
Gainesville, and Jacksonville is second on that list.

I really don't know what the attraction is for south Florida on the
west
coast.



More temperate winters

Whiter beaches

Prettier area

Less retirees from the NY/NJ/New England area.

Smaller probability of running into Harry Krause!

Yes, of course. And his ilk.

Hey NYOB....this make your return like small potatos.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9398215/

P Fritz wrote:
Hey NOBBY....this make your return like small potatos.


Harry Krause wrote:
IS Fritz related to Tuuuuuck? About the same command of English.


Not only that, he spelled "potatoes" wrong

DSK